Study | Face Validity* | Content Validity* | Construct Validity* | Criterion Validity* | Reliability* | Responsiveness* | Quality Scoring |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cross-sectional studies | |||||||
McGonagle, et al16 | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | 9 |
Olivieri, et al19 | YES | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | 7 |
Tan, et al24 | YES | NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | 7 |
McQueen, et al17 | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | 8 |
Tan, et al22 | NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | 5 |
Marzo-Ortega, et al15 | NO | NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | 7 |
Maksymowicz, et al14 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | 6 |
Althoff, et al9 | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | 7 |
Aydin, et al10 | YES | YES | YES | NO | YES | NO | 8 |
Braum, et al11 | YES | YES | YES | NO | NO | NO | 7 |
Ramírez, et al21 | YES | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | 8 |
Paramarta, et al20 | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | 7 |
Poggenborg, et al2 | YES | YES | YES | NO | YES | NO | 10 |
Tan, et al23 | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | 7 |
Giraudo, et al13 | YES | NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | 7 |
Agten, et al6 | NO | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | 8 |
Maldonado, et al7 | YES | YES | YES | NO | YES | NO | 7 |
Aivazoglou, et al8 | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | NO | 7 |
Case control studies | |||||||
Olivieri, et al18 | YES | YES | YES | NO | NO | NO | 6 |
Lambert, et al29 | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | 6 |
Erdem, et al27 | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | 5 |
Wiell, et al32 | YES | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | 8 |
Emad, et al26 | YES | NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | 6 |
Weckbach, et al30 | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | 7 |
Feydy, et al28 | YES | NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | 8 |
Wiell, et al31 | YES | YES | YES | NO | YES | NO | 9 |
Chen, et al25 | YES | YES | YES | NO | NO | NO | 6 |
Cohort studies | |||||||
Godfrin, et al35 | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | 6 |
Eshed, et al34 | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | 6 |
Huang, et al36 | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | 9 |
Karpitschk, et al37 | YES | YES | YES | NO | YES | YES | 9 |
Althoff, et al33 | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | 8 |
Marzo-Ortega, et al38 | YES | YES | YES | NO | YES | YES | 8 |
Tan, et al43 | YES | NO | NO | NO | NO | YES | 8 |
de Hooge, et al42 | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | YES | 9 |
Randomized controlled trials | |||||||
Dougados, et al39 | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | 7 |
Song, et al41 | YES | NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | 9 |
Krabbe, et al40 | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES | 11 |
↵* Face validity was defined as expert opinion on the credibility of scoring system used in each article to measure enthesitis. Content validity estimated the reliability of the scoring system used in each study to measure the full spectrum of outcome – inflammatory and structural changes. Construct validity was achieved when MRI evaluation of enthesitis correlated with the following concepts of enthesitis: (1) clinical assessment of enthesitis using a validated enthesitis score (e.g., MASES), (2) ultrasound or radiographic assessment of enthesitis sites, and/or (3) comparison of different sequences of MRI in assessing enthesitis. Criterion validity was achieved when MRI evaluation of enthesitis correlated with a gold standard (e.g., histology). Reliability was defined in studies mentioning inter-rater reliability measures of scoring consistency between and within MRI readers, e.g., inter/intraclass correlation coefficients or ϰ statistics. Responsiveness was achieved in studies documenting statistically significant changes in relation to treatment introduction or change. MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; MASES: Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score.