Interobserver reliability of Masei index validation by a multicenter collaborative group of rheumatologists.

MASEI is the main validated ultrasound score for the evaluation of enthesis. The lack of studies facing the agreement to achieve for the interpretation of the MAdrid Sonographic Enthesis Index (MASEI) among researchers from different centers in multicenter studies is of concern. The aim of this multicenter was to evaluate the interobserver reliability of MASEI. An experienced ultrasonographer-rheumatologist performed ultrasound scans of the areas included in MASEI index in three patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Videos were captured. The videos were then evaluated by 24 rheumatologists of the ultrasound working group of the Catalan Society of Rheumatology (EcoCAT). A face-to-face training meeting was held. Ten days after the workshop, the study participants evaluated the videos. A reliability assessment was performed. The ICC for the MASEI scores after the workshop was of 0.97 (95% CI 89-99). Reliability did not vary statistically with examiner experience. Globally, no problems of reliability by structures were seen, and all the ICCs were above 0.90 and improved slightly after the educational program. However, the correlation observed between examiners at plantar aponeursis and triceps tendon was weak. The small variability observed in the results of the index validation in our study, suggests that the MASEI index is reproducible by different observers when those are well trained and show awesome results of the enthesis when examined by ultrasound.

Functional Status, Quality of Life, and Costs Associated With Fibromyalgia Subgroups: A Latent Profile Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Although fibromyalgia syndrome (FM) is considered a heterogeneous condition, there is no generally accepted subgroup typology. We used hierarchical cluster analysis and latent profile analysis to replicate Giesecke's classification in Spanish FM patients. The second aim was to examine whether the subgroups differed in sociodemographic characteristics, functional status, quality of life, and in direct and indirect costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 160 FM patients completed the following measures for cluster derivation: the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale, the Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and the Control over Pain subscale. Pain threshold was measured with a sphygmomanometer. In addition, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised, the EuroQoL-5D-3L, and the Client Service Receipt Inventory were administered for cluster validation. RESULTS: Two distinct clusters were identified using hierarchical cluster analysis ("hypersensitive" group, 69.8% and "functional" group, 30.2%). In contrast, the latent profile analysis goodness-of-fit indices supported the existence of 3 FM patient profiles: (1) a "functional" profile (28.1%) defined as moderate tenderness, distress, and pain catastrophizing; (2) a "dysfunctional" profile (45.6%) defined by elevated tenderness, distress, and pain catastrophizing; and (3) a "highly dysfunctional and distressed" profile (26.3%) characterized by elevated tenderness and extremely high distress and catastrophizing. We did not find significant differences in sociodemographic characteristics between the 2 clusters or among the 3 profiles. The functional profile was associated with less impairment, greater quality of life, and lower health care costs. DISCUSSION: We identified 3 distinct profiles which accounted for the heterogeneity of FM patients. Our findings might help to design tailored interventions for FM patients.