Alexis Ogdie1, William J Taylor2, Mark Weatherall2, Jaap Fransen3, Tim L Jansen3, Tuhina Neogi4, H Ralph Schumacher1, Nicola Dalbeth5. 1. Division of Rheumatology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand. 3. Department of Rheumatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Sections of Epidemiology and Rheumatology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there has been major progress in gout imaging, no gout classification criteria currently include advanced imaging techniques. OBJECTIVE: To examine the usefulness of imaging modalities in the classification of gout when compared to monosodium urate (MSU) crystal confirmation as the gold standard, in order to inform development of new gout classification criteria. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published literature concerning the diagnostic performance of plain film radiography, MRI, ultrasound (US), conventional CT and dual energy CT (DECT). Only studies with MSU crystal confirmation as the gold standard were included. When more than one study examined the same imaging feature, the data were pooled and summary test characteristics were calculated. RESULTS: 11 studies (9 manuscripts and 2 meeting abstracts) satisfied the inclusion criteria. All were set in secondary care, with mean gout disease duration of at least 7 years. Three features were examined in more than one study: the double contour sign (DCS) on US, tophus on US, and MSU crystal deposition on DECT. The pooled (95% CI) sensitivity and specificity of US DCS were 0.83 (0.72 to 0.91) and 0.76 (0.68 to 0.83), respectively; of US tophus, were 0.65 (0.34 to 0.87) and 0.80 (0.38 to 0.96), respectively; and of DECT, were 0.87 (0.79 to 0.93) and 0.84 (0.75 to 0.90), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: US and DECT show promise for gout classification but the few studies to date have mostly been in patients with longstanding, established disease. The contribution of imaging over clinical features for gout classification criteria requires further examination. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Although there has been major progress in gout imaging, no gout classification criteria currently include advanced imaging techniques. OBJECTIVE: To examine the usefulness of imaging modalities in the classification of gout when compared to monosodium urate (MSU) crystal confirmation as the gold standard, in order to inform development of new gout classification criteria. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published literature concerning the diagnostic performance of plain film radiography, MRI, ultrasound (US), conventional CT and dual energy CT (DECT). Only studies with MSU crystal confirmation as the gold standard were included. When more than one study examined the same imaging feature, the data were pooled and summary test characteristics were calculated. RESULTS: 11 studies (9 manuscripts and 2 meeting abstracts) satisfied the inclusion criteria. All were set in secondary care, with mean gout disease duration of at least 7 years. Three features were examined in more than one study: the double contour sign (DCS) on US, tophus on US, and MSU crystal deposition on DECT. The pooled (95% CI) sensitivity and specificity of US DCS were 0.83 (0.72 to 0.91) and 0.76 (0.68 to 0.83), respectively; of US tophus, were 0.65 (0.34 to 0.87) and 0.80 (0.38 to 0.96), respectively; and of DECT, were 0.87 (0.79 to 0.93) and 0.84 (0.75 to 0.90), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: US and DECT show promise for gout classification but the few studies to date have mostly been in patients with longstanding, established disease. The contribution of imaging over clinical features for gout classification criteria requires further examination. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Jasvinder A Singh; Daniel H Solomon; Maxime Dougados; David Felson; Gillian Hawker; Patricia Katz; Hal Paulus; Carol Wallace Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2006-06-15
Authors: Selim Nalbant; Hector Corominas; Benjamin Hsu; Lan X Chen; H Ralph Schumacher; Tasanee Kitumnuaypong Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Penny Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: U Kiltz; R Alten; M Fleck; K Krüger; B Manger; U Müller-Ladner; H Nüsslein; M Reuss-Borst; A Schwarting; H Schulze-Koops; A K Tausche; J Braun Journal: Z Rheumatol Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 1.372
Authors: U Kiltz; R Alten; M Fleck; K Krüger; B Manger; U Müller-Ladner; H Nüßlein; M Reuss-Borst; A Schwarting; H Schulze-Koops; A Tausche; J Braun Journal: Z Rheumatol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.372
Authors: Alexis Ogdie; William J Taylor; Tuhina Neogi; Jaap Fransen; Tim L Jansen; H Ralph Schumacher; Worawit Louthrenoo; Janitzia Vazquez-Mellado; Maxim Eliseev; Geraldine McCarthy; Lisa K Stamp; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Francisca Sivera; Hang-Korng Ea; Martijn Gerritsen; Giovanni Cagnotto; Lorenzo Cavagna; Chingtsai Lin; Yin-Yi Chou; Anne-Kathrin Tausche; Manuella Lima Gomes Ochtrop; Matthijs Janssen; Jiunn-Horng Chen; Ole Slot; Juris Lazovskis; Douglas White; Marco A Cimmino; Till Uhlig; Nicola Dalbeth Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 10.995