OBJECTIVE: To summarize literature on the responsiveness and reliability of MRI-based measures of knee osteoarthritis (OA) structural change. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using articles published up to the time of the search, April 2009. 1338 abstracts obtained with this search were preliminarily screened for relevance and of these, 243 were selected for data extraction. For this analysis we extracted data on reliability and responsiveness for every reported synovial joint tissue as it relates to MRI measurement in knee OA. Reliability was defined by inter- and intra-reader intra-class correlation (ICC), or coefficient of variation, or kappa statistics. Responsiveness was defined as standardized response mean (SRM) - ratio of mean of change over time divided by standard deviation of change. Random-effects models were used to pool data from multiple studies. RESULTS: The reliability analysis included data from 84 manuscripts. The inter-reader and intra-reader ICC were excellent (range 0.8-0.94) and the inter-reader and intra-reader kappa values for quantitative and semi-quantitative measures were all moderate to excellent (range 0.52-0.88). The lowest value (kappa=0.52) corresponded to semi-quantitative synovial scoring intra-reader reliability and the highest value (ICC=0.94) for semi-quantitative cartilage morphology. The responsiveness analysis included data from 42 manuscripts. The pooled SRM for quantitative measures of cartilage morphometry for the medial tibiofemoral joint was -0.86 (95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.26 to -0.46). The pooled SRM for the semi-quantitative measurement of cartilage morphology for the medial tibiofemoral joint was 0.55 (95% CI 0.47-0.64). For the quantitative analysis, SRMs are negative because the quantitative value, indicating a loss of cartilage, goes down. For the semi-quantitative analysis, SRMs indicating a loss in cartilage are positive (increase in score). CONCLUSION: MRI has evolved substantially over the last decade and its strengths include the ability to visualize individual tissue pathologies, which can be measured reliably and with good responsiveness using both quantitative and semi-quantitative techniques.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize literature on the responsiveness and reliability of MRI-based measures of knee osteoarthritis (OA) structural change. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using articles published up to the time of the search, April 2009. 1338 abstracts obtained with this search were preliminarily screened for relevance and of these, 243 were selected for data extraction. For this analysis we extracted data on reliability and responsiveness for every reported synovial joint tissue as it relates to MRI measurement in knee OA. Reliability was defined by inter- and intra-reader intra-class correlation (ICC), or coefficient of variation, or kappa statistics. Responsiveness was defined as standardized response mean (SRM) - ratio of mean of change over time divided by standard deviation of change. Random-effects models were used to pool data from multiple studies. RESULTS: The reliability analysis included data from 84 manuscripts. The inter-reader and intra-reader ICC were excellent (range 0.8-0.94) and the inter-reader and intra-reader kappa values for quantitative and semi-quantitative measures were all moderate to excellent (range 0.52-0.88). The lowest value (kappa=0.52) corresponded to semi-quantitative synovial scoring intra-reader reliability and the highest value (ICC=0.94) for semi-quantitative cartilage morphology. The responsiveness analysis included data from 42 manuscripts. The pooled SRM for quantitative measures of cartilage morphometry for the medial tibiofemoral joint was -0.86 (95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.26 to -0.46). The pooled SRM for the semi-quantitative measurement of cartilage morphology for the medial tibiofemoral joint was 0.55 (95% CI 0.47-0.64). For the quantitative analysis, SRMs are negative because the quantitative value, indicating a loss of cartilage, goes down. For the semi-quantitative analysis, SRMs indicating a loss in cartilage are positive (increase in score). CONCLUSION: MRI has evolved substantially over the last decade and its strengths include the ability to visualize individual tissue pathologies, which can be measured reliably and with good responsiveness using both quantitative and semi-quantitative techniques.
Authors: David T Felson; Jingbo Niu; Ali Guermazi; Frank Roemer; Piran Aliabadi; Margaret Clancy; James Torner; C Elizabeth Lewis; Michael C Nevitt Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2007-09
Authors: A A Qazi; J Folkesson; P C Pettersen; M A Karsdal; C Christiansen; E B Dam Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2007-05-10 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Catherine L Hill; David J Hunter; Jingbo Niu; Margaret Clancy; Ali Guermazi; Harry Genant; Daniel Gale; Andrew Grainger; Philip Conaghan; David T Felson Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Ferencz J Baranyay; Yuanyuan Wang; Anita E Wluka; Dallas R English; Graham G Giles; Richard O Sullivan; Flavia M Cicuttini Journal: Semin Arthritis Rheum Date: 2007-03-27 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: R Stahl; G Blumenkrantz; J Carballido-Gamio; S Zhao; T Munoz; M P Hellio Le Graverand-Gastineau; X Li; S Majumdar; T M Link Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2007-06-11 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: F Eckstein; M Kunz; M Schutzer; M Hudelmaier; R D Jackson; J Yu; C B Eaton; E Schneider Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2007-06-08 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: E Guymer; F Baranyay; A E Wluka; F Hanna; R J Bell; S R Davis; Y Wang; F M Cicuttini Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2007-06-07 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Fahad Hanna; Andrew J Teichtahl; Robin Bell; Susan R Davis; Anita E Wluka; Richard O'Sullivan; Flavia M Cicuttini Journal: Menopause Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: F W Roemer; D J Hunter; M D Crema; C K Kwoh; E Ochoa-Albiztegui; A Guermazi Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Jamie E Collins; Elena Losina; Robert G Marx; Ali Guermazi; Mohamed Jarraya; Morgan H Jones; Bruce A Levy; Lisa A Mandl; Scott D Martin; Rick W Wright; Kurt P Spindler; Jeffrey N Katz Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Arya Haj-Mirzaian; Ali Guermazi; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; Christopher Sereni; Michael Hakky; David J Hunter; Bashir Zikria; Frank W Roemer; Shadpour Demehri Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Maria-Antonietta D'Agostino; Maarten Boers; John Kirwan; Désirée van der Heijde; Mikkel Østergaard; Georg Schett; Robert B Landewé; Walter P Maksymowych; Esperanza Naredo; Maxime Dougados; Annamaria Iagnocco; Clifton O Bingham; Peter M Brooks; Dorcas E Beaton; Frederique Gandjbakhch; Laure Gossec; Francis Guillemin; Sarah E Hewlett; Margreet Kloppenburg; Lyn March; Philip J Mease; Ingrid Moller; Lee S Simon; Jasvinder A Singh; Vibeke Strand; Richard J Wakefield; George A Wells; Peter Tugwell; Philip G Conaghan Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Sharon Balamoody; Tomos G Williams; Chris Wolstenholme; John C Waterton; Michael Bowes; Richard Hodgson; Sha Zhao; Marietta Scott; Chris J Taylor; Charles E Hutchinson Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Andrew D Smith; Alison J Morton; Matthew D Winter; Patrick T Colahan; Steve Ghivizzani; Murray P Brown; Jorge A Hernandez; David M Nickerson Journal: Vet Radiol Ultrasound Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 1.363
Authors: Felix C Hofmann; Jan Neumann; Ursula Heilmeier; Gabby B Joseph; Michael C Nevitt; Charles E McCulloch; Thomas M Link Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 2.199