B F Riecke1, R Christensen2, S Torp-Pedersen3, M Boesen4, H Gudbergsen5, H Bliddal6. 1. The Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: doktorbirgit@dadlnet.dk. 2. The Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark; Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. Electronic address: Robin.Daniel.Kjersgaard.Christensen@regionh.dk. 3. The Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: soeren.tobias.torp-pedersen.01@regionh.dk. 4. The Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: Mikael.boesen@dadlnet.dk. 5. The Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: Gudbergsen@dadlnet.dk. 6. The Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: henning.bliddal@regionh.dk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop standardized musculoskeletal ultrasound (MUS) procedures and scoring for detecting knee osteoarthritis (OA) and test the MUS score's ability to discern various degrees of knee OA, in comparison with plain radiography and the 'Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score' (KOOS) domains as comparators. METHOD: A cross-sectional study of MUS examinations in 45 patients with knee OA. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility were evaluated. RESULTS: MUS examination for knee OA consists of five separate domains assessing (1) predominantly morphological changes in the medial compartment, (2) predominantly inflammation in the medial compartment, (3) predominantly morphological changes in the lateral compartment, (4) predominantly inflammation in the lateral compartment, and (5) effusion. MUS scores displayed substantial reliability and reproducibility, with interclass correlations coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.97 for the five domains. Construct validity was confirmed with statistically significant correlation coefficients (0.47-0.81, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The MUS score suggested in this study was reliable and valid in detecting knee OA. In comparison with standing radiographs of the knees, the score detected all aspects of knee OA with relevant precision.
OBJECTIVE: To develop standardized musculoskeletal ultrasound (MUS) procedures and scoring for detecting knee osteoarthritis (OA) and test the MUS score's ability to discern various degrees of knee OA, in comparison with plain radiography and the 'Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score' (KOOS) domains as comparators. METHOD: A cross-sectional study of MUS examinations in 45 patients with knee OA. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility were evaluated. RESULTS: MUS examination for knee OA consists of five separate domains assessing (1) predominantly morphological changes in the medial compartment, (2) predominantly inflammation in the medial compartment, (3) predominantly morphological changes in the lateral compartment, (4) predominantly inflammation in the lateral compartment, and (5) effusion. MUS scores displayed substantial reliability and reproducibility, with interclass correlations coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.97 for the five domains. Construct validity was confirmed with statistically significant correlation coefficients (0.47-0.81, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The MUS score suggested in this study was reliable and valid in detecting knee OA. In comparison with standing radiographs of the knees, the score detected all aspects of knee OA with relevant precision.
Authors: Luca Maria Sconfienza; Domenico Albano; Georgina Allen; Alberto Bazzocchi; Bianca Bignotti; Vito Chianca; Fernando Facal de Castro; Elena E Drakonaki; Elena Gallardo; Jan Gielen; Andrea Sabine Klauser; Carlo Martinoli; Giovanni Mauri; Eugene McNally; Carmelo Messina; Rebeca Mirón Mombiela; Davide Orlandi; Athena Plagou; Magdalena Posadzy; Rosa de la Puente; Monique Reijnierse; Federica Rossi; Saulius Rutkauskas; Ziga Snoj; Jelena Vucetic; David Wilson; Alberto Stefano Tagliafico Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jana Podlipská; Ali Guermazi; Petri Lehenkari; Jaakko Niinimäki; Frank W Roemer; Jari P Arokoski; Päivi Kaukinen; Esa Liukkonen; Eveliina Lammentausta; Miika T Nieminen; Osmo Tervonen; Juhani M Koski; Simo Saarakkala Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jana Podlipská; Juhani M Koski; Päivi Kaukinen; Marianne Haapea; Osmo Tervonen; Jari P Arokoski; Simo Saarakkala Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Mika T Nevalainen; Kyösti Kauppinen; Juho Pylväläinen; Konsta Pamilo; Maija Pesola; Marianne Haapea; Juhani Koski; Simo Saarakkala Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Douaa M Mosalem; Shothour M Alghunaim; Diaa K Shehab; Ayyoub B Baqer; Aziz K Alfeeli; Mohieldin M Ahmed Journal: Open Access Maced J Med Sci Date: 2018-09-18