D Schiphof1, E H G Oei2, A Hofman3, J H Waarsing4, H Weinans5, S M A Bierma-Zeinstra6. 1. Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: d.schiphof@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Radiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: e.oei@erasmusmc.nl. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.hofman@erasmusmc.nl. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: e.waarsing@erasmusmc.nl. 5. Department of Orthopaedics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Orthopaedics and Department of Rheumatology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: H.H.Weinans@umcutrecht.nl. 6. Department of General Practice and Department of Orthopaedics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.bierma-zeinstra@erasmusmc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) definition for tibiofemoral osteoarthritis [(TFOAMRI) (definite osteophyte and full-thickness cartilage loss (or a combination of these factors with other MRI osteoarthritis (OA) features)] more sensitive to detect structural OA compared with the Kellgren & Lawrence (K&L) grading? And which definition shows the strongest association with (1) knee pain at baseline, (2) persistent knee pain during 2-year follow-up, (3) new onset of knee pain ±2 years later, and (4) body mass index (BMI). DESIGN: Of 888 females of the open population Rotterdam Study, radiographs and MRI of both knees were assessed for knee OA defined by K&L ≥ 2 and TFOAMRI. Pain in or around the knee is measured at baseline and ±2 years later. GEE analyses are used for the associations. RESULTS: Of 1766 knees, 77 knees (4%) were diagnosed with K&L ≥ 2, whereas 160 knees (9%) met the TFOAMRI criteria. Only 43 knees met both definitions (34 knees were graded with K&L ≥ 2 and no TFOAMRI and 117 knees met only the TFOAMRI criteria). The association between the definitions and knee pain at baseline was higher when TFOAMRI was included [TFOAMRI alone: odds ratio (OR) = 2.83 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.84-4.36); TFOAMRI & K&L ≥ 2: OR = 6.28 (95% CI: 2.99-13.19)] than for K&L ≥ 2 alone (OR = 1.83 (95% CI: 0.63-5.32)). This was similar for the association between the definitions and persistent knee pain, and between the definitions and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: TFOAMRI detects more cases of knee OA than K&L ≥ 2. Together with a better content validity and at least equal construct validity, we conclude that the TFOAMRI definition for knee OA is more sensitive in detecting structural knee OA.
OBJECTIVES: Is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) definition for tibiofemoral osteoarthritis [(TFOAMRI) (definite osteophyte and full-thickness cartilage loss (or a combination of these factors with other MRI osteoarthritis (OA) features)] more sensitive to detect structural OA compared with the Kellgren & Lawrence (K&L) grading? And which definition shows the strongest association with (1) knee pain at baseline, (2) persistent knee pain during 2-year follow-up, (3) new onset of knee pain ±2 years later, and (4) body mass index (BMI). DESIGN: Of 888 females of the open population Rotterdam Study, radiographs and MRI of both knees were assessed for knee OA defined by K&L ≥ 2 and TFOAMRI. Pain in or around the knee is measured at baseline and ±2 years later. GEE analyses are used for the associations. RESULTS: Of 1766 knees, 77 knees (4%) were diagnosed with K&L ≥ 2, whereas 160 knees (9%) met the TFOAMRI criteria. Only 43 knees met both definitions (34 knees were graded with K&L ≥ 2 and no TFOAMRI and 117 knees met only the TFOAMRI criteria). The association between the definitions and knee pain at baseline was higher when TFOAMRI was included [TFOAMRI alone: odds ratio (OR) = 2.83 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.84-4.36); TFOAMRI & K&L ≥ 2: OR = 6.28 (95% CI: 2.99-13.19)] than for K&L ≥ 2 alone (OR = 1.83 (95% CI: 0.63-5.32)). This was similar for the association between the definitions and persistent knee pain, and between the definitions and BMI. CONCLUSIONS:TFOAMRI detects more cases of knee OA than K&L ≥ 2. Together with a better content validity and at least equal construct validity, we conclude that the TFOAMRI definition for knee OA is more sensitive in detecting structural knee OA.
Authors: Shinjini Kundu; Beth G Ashinsky; Mustapha Bouhrara; Erik B Dam; Shadpour Demehri; M Shifat-E-Rabbi; Richard G Spencer; Kenneth L Urish; Gustavo K Rohde Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Hsiang-Ling Teng; Toran D MacLeod; Thomas M Link; Sharmila Majumdar; Richard B Souza Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Alberto Migliore; Carlo Alberto Scirè; Loreto Carmona; Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont; Emanuele Bizzi; Jaime Branco; Greta Carrara; Xavier Chevalier; Ledio Collaku; Spiros Aslanidis; Lev Denisov; Luigi Di Matteo; Gerolamo Bianchi; Demirhan Diracoglu; Bruno Frediani; Emmanuel Maheu; Natalia Martusevich; Gian Filippo Bagnato; Magda Scarpellini; Giovanni Minisola; Nurullah Akkoc; Roberta Ramonda; Tatiana Barskova; Durda Babic-Naglic; Jose Vicente Moreno Muelas; Ruxandra Ionescu; Rasho Rashkov; Nemanja Damjanov; Marco Matucci Cerinic Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 2.631