OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to draw up a set of recommendations for the format and content of the musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) report in rheumatology. METHODS: A panel of rheumatologists, members of the MSUS Study Group of the Italian Society of Rheumatology, met in order to identify the main discrepancies in the MSUS report. A set of 15 recommendations was then defined, aimed at resolving the main discrepancies. They consisted of information about the motivations for the MSUS examination, the equipment, the US modalities and scanning technique, a list of the examined structures and findings, the scoring/grading systems, the number of images and main findings to include and conclusions. Subsequently a Delphi-based procedure was started in order to obtain agreement on a core set of recommendations. Consensus for each recommendation was considered achieved when the percentage of agreement was >75%. RESULTS: Three complete rounds were performed. The response rate was 85.2% for the first round, 78.3% for the second and 88.9% for the third. Finally, consensus was obtained for 14 of 15 statements. These 14 statements represent the recommendations of the group for the format and content of the report and documentation in MSUS in rheumatology. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, our group has produced the first recommendations for the format and content of the report and documentation in MSUS in rheumatology. The report is an integral part of the MSUS examination and its use in a homogeneous form can help in the correct interpretation of the findings.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to draw up a set of recommendations for the format and content of the musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) report in rheumatology. METHODS: A panel of rheumatologists, members of the MSUS Study Group of the Italian Society of Rheumatology, met in order to identify the main discrepancies in the MSUS report. A set of 15 recommendations was then defined, aimed at resolving the main discrepancies. They consisted of information about the motivations for the MSUS examination, the equipment, the US modalities and scanning technique, a list of the examined structures and findings, the scoring/grading systems, the number of images and main findings to include and conclusions. Subsequently a Delphi-based procedure was started in order to obtain agreement on a core set of recommendations. Consensus for each recommendation was considered achieved when the percentage of agreement was >75%. RESULTS: Three complete rounds were performed. The response rate was 85.2% for the first round, 78.3% for the second and 88.9% for the third. Finally, consensus was obtained for 14 of 15 statements. These 14 statements represent the recommendations of the group for the format and content of the report and documentation in MSUS in rheumatology. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, our group has produced the first recommendations for the format and content of the report and documentation in MSUS in rheumatology. The report is an integral part of the MSUS examination and its use in a homogeneous form can help in the correct interpretation of the findings.
Authors: Tânia Santiago; Eduardo José Ferreira Santos; Barbara Ruaro; Gemma Lepri; Lorraine Green; Marie Wildt; Shinji Watanabe; Alain Lescoat; Roger Hesselstrand; Francesco Del Galdo; John D Pauling; Lucy Jean Reeve; Maria Antonieta D'Agostino; Marco Matucci-Cerinic; Annamaria Iagnocco; Jose Antonio Pereira da Silva Journal: RMD Open Date: 2022-07
Authors: Peter Mandl; Asta Baranauskaite; Nemanja Damjanov; Maja Hojnik; Reka Kurucz; Orsolya Nagy; Petr Nemec; Dora Niedermayer; Porin Perić; Tzvetanka Petranova; Andres Pille; Simona Rednic; Violeta Vlad; Martin Zlnay; Peter V Balint Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 2.631