impact factor, citescore
logo
 

Brief Paper

 

Role of Patrick-FABER test in detecting sacroiliitis and diagnosing spondyloarthritis in subjects with low back pain


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

 

  1. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy.
  2. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy.
  3. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy.
  4. Orthopaedic Surgery Unit, Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy.
  5. Orthopaedic Surgery Unit, Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy.
  6. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy. rscarpa@unina.it
  7. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy.
  8. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy.

CER16549
2023 Vol.41, N°11
PI 2298, PF 2300
Brief Paper

Free to view
(click on article PDF icon to read the article)

PMID: 37650318 [PubMed]

Received: 30/01/2023
Accepted : 15/05/2023
In Press: 29/08/2023
Published: 14/11/2023

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of Patrick-FABER test in assessing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sacroiliitis and addressing the diagnosis of spondyloarthritis (SpA) in subjects with low back pain (LBP).
METHODS:
Subjects with LBP were consecutively enrolled. The assessors were blinded to patients’ clinical, laboratory, or imaging data. All subjects underwent sacroiliac joint MRI to detect presence of sacroiliac oedema or structural changes.
RESULTS:
One hundred and ten subjects were included in the study [males (61.8%); median age of 45 (21-69) years; LBP duration of 78 (3–240) months]. Patrick-FABER test sign’s sensitivity was 76.2% (95% CI: 60.5–87.9%), specificity was 66.2% (95% CI: 53.6–77.2%), positive predictive value (PPV) was 58.1% (95% CI: 44.1–71.3%) and negative predictive value (NPV) was 81.8% (95% CI: 69.1–90.9%) for the diagnosis of sacroiliitis, with an overall diagnostic accuracy of 70%. At the univariate and multivariate analysis, Patrick-FABER test sign was associated with inflammatory lesions of sacroiliitis at MRI and SpA diagnosis. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed an association between smoking status (p=0.01), sacroiliitis, and SpA diagnosis. The odds of having sacroiliitis was 2.7 higher in smokers (OR: 2.7; 95% CI: 1.1–7) as compared to non-smokers and 6.3 higher in those with a positive Patrick-FABER test sign (OR: 6.3; 95%CI: 2.5–15.6) as compared to those with a negative sign.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our study shows that Patrick-FABER test positivity could represent a useful clinical test for addressing the use of sacroiliac joints MRI and SpA diagnosis in subjects with LBP. Further, smoking habit could represent an associate anamnestic element for addressing the use of sacroiliac MRI.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.55563/clinexprheumatol/kgje8k

Rheumatology Article