Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 987

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

2010 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis

Open access
Braun, J, van den Berg, R, Baraliakos, X, Boehm, H, Burgos-Vargas, R, Collantes-Estevez, E, Dagfinrud, H, Dijkmans, B, Dougados, M, Emery, P, Geher, P, Hammoudeh, M, Inman, RD, Jongkees, M, Khan, MA, Kiltz, U, Kvien, TK, Leirisalo-Repo, M, Maksymowych, WP, Olivieri, I, Pavelka, K, Sieper, J, Stanislawska-Biernat, E, Wendling, D, Özgocmen, S, van Drogen, C, van Royen, BJ, van der Heijde, D·2011·Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

Abstract

This first update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations on the management of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is based on the original paper, a systematic review of existing recommendations and the literature since 2005 and the discussion and agreement among 21 international experts, 2 patients and 2 physiotherapists in a meeting in February 2010. Each original bullet point was discussed in detail and reworded if necessary. Decisions on new recommendations were made — if necessary after voting. The strength of the recommendations (SOR) was scored on an 11-point numerical rating scale after the meeting by email. These recommendations apply to patients of all ages that fulfill the modified NY criteria for AS, independent of extra-articular manifestations, and they take into account all drug and non-drug interventions related to AS. Four overarching principles were introduced, implying that one bullet has been moved to this section. There are now 11 bullet points including 2 new ones, one related to extra-articular manifestations and one to changes in the disease course. With a mean score of 9.1 (range 8-10) the SOR was generally very good.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/ard.2011.151027

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 987

Metadata

Authors
Braun, J., van den Berg, R., Baraliakos, X., Boehm, H., Burgos-Vargas, R., Collantes-Estevez, E., Dagfinrud, H., Dijkmans, B., Dougados, M., Emery, P., Geher, P., Hammoudeh, M., Inman, R., Jongkees, M., Khan, M., Kiltz, U., Kvien, T., Leirisalo-Repo, M., Maksymowych, W., Olivieri, I., Pavelka, K., Sieper, J., Stanislawska-Biernat, E., Wendling, D., Özgocmen, S., van Drogen, C., van Royen, B., & van der Heijde, D.
Venue
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-06
Volume
70
Issue
6
Pages
896-904
ISSN
0003-4967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124551692
Cited by
987
References
5
FWCI
66.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 2010 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/ard.2011.151027
The paper
Braun, J., van den Berg, R., Baraliakos, X., Boehm, H., Burgos-Vargas, R., Collantes-Estevez, E., Dagfinrud, H., Dijkmans, B., Dougados, M., Emery, P., Geher, P., Hammoudeh, M., Inman, R., Jongkees, M., Khan, M., Kiltz, U., Kvien, T., Leirisalo-Repo, M., Maksymowych, W., . . . van der Heijde, D. (2011). 2010 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2011.151027

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.