ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Performance of referral strategies for patients with suspected axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is a clinically important but often under-recognized condition, with substantial diagnostic delay. Structured referral strategies have been proposed to facilitate earlier identification of suspected cases; however, their diagnostic accuracy has not been comprehensively compared. We therefore conducted a systematic review to synthesize the diagnostic accuracy of referral strategies for identifying axSpA in patients with chronic back pain. Methods: We performed a systematic review of observational studies evaluating referral strategies for suspected axSpA. The review protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025634153). MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and CINAHL Plus were searched from inception to December 2025. Study selection, data extraction using the "Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies" (CHARMS), risk of bias assessment using the "Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool + Artificial Intelligence" (PROBAST+AI), and certainty of evidence rating using an adapted "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach were conducted by two independent reviewers. Findings: Twenty-four studies evaluating 40 referral strategies were included. Risk of bias was high across all strategies, resulting in low to very low certainty of evidence for most performance metrics. Meta-analysis was feasible for nine referral strategies. Statistically significant pooled likelihood ratios were observed for the negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of the ASAS referral criteria (0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.81), and for both the positive and negative LRs of the Braun 2-step alternative strategy (LR+ 2.02, 95% CI 1.47-2.76; LR- 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.75), CaFaSpA ≥1 (LR+ 1.64, 95% CI 1.04-2.59; LR- 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.87), and RADAR 2/3 (LR+ 2.76, 95% CI 2.13-3.59; LR- 0.60, 95% CI 0.51-0.71). These results did not meet thresholds (e.g., LR+ >10, LR- <0.10) for strong diagnostic accuracy. Interpretation: Current referral strategies for axSpA have limited diagnostic impact and are supported by low to very low-certainty evidence. Future research should prioritize the development of new referral strategies, particularly for primary care settings. Funding: No specific funding was received for this work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.