OBJECTIVE: To summarize the work performed by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Ultrasound (US) Working Group on the validation of US as a potential outcome measure in gout. METHODS: Based on the lack of definitions, highlighted in a recent literature review on US as an outcome tool in gout, a series of iterative exercises were carried out to obtain consensus-based definitions on US elementary components in gout using a Delphi exercise and subsequently testing these definitions in static images and in patients with proven gout. Cohen's κ was used to test agreement, and values of 0-0.20 were considered poor, 0.20-0.40 fair, 0.40-0.60 moderate, 0.60-0.80 good, and 0.80-1 excellent. RESULTS: With an agreement of > 80%, consensus-based definitions were obtained for the 4 elementary lesions highlighted in the literature review: tophi, aggregates, erosions, and double contour (DC). In static images interobserver reliability ranged from moderate to almost perfect, and similar results were found for the intrareader reliability. In patients the intraobserver agreement was good for all lesions except DC (moderate). The interobserver agreement was poor for aggregates and DC but moderate for the other components. CONCLUSION: These first steps in evaluating the validity of US as an outcome measure for gout show that the reliability of the definitions ranged from moderate to excellent in static images and somewhat lower in patients, indicating that a standardized scanning technique may be needed, before testing the responsiveness of those definitions in a composite US score.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the work performed by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Ultrasound (US) Working Group on the validation of US as a potential outcome measure in gout. METHODS: Based on the lack of definitions, highlighted in a recent literature review on US as an outcome tool in gout, a series of iterative exercises were carried out to obtain consensus-based definitions on US elementary components in gout using a Delphi exercise and subsequently testing these definitions in static images and in patients with proven gout. Cohen's κ was used to test agreement, and values of 0-0.20 were considered poor, 0.20-0.40 fair, 0.40-0.60 moderate, 0.60-0.80 good, and 0.80-1 excellent. RESULTS: With an agreement of > 80%, consensus-based definitions were obtained for the 4 elementary lesions highlighted in the literature review: tophi, aggregates, erosions, and double contour (DC). In static images interobserver reliability ranged from moderate to almost perfect, and similar results were found for the intrareader reliability. In patients the intraobserver agreement was good for all lesions except DC (moderate). The interobserver agreement was poor for aggregates and DC but moderate for the other components. CONCLUSION: These first steps in evaluating the validity of US as an outcome measure for gout show that the reliability of the definitions ranged from moderate to excellent in static images and somewhat lower in patients, indicating that a standardized scanning technique may be needed, before testing the responsiveness of those definitions in a composite US score.
Entities:
Keywords:
GOUT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ULTRASOUND
Authors: Marwin Gutierrez; Cristina Hernandez-Diaz; Lucio Ventura-Rios; Lina María Saldarriaga-Rivera; Santiago Ruta; Magaly Alva; Claudia Mora -Trujillo; Wilkerson Pérez; Henry Terrazas; Rodolfo Del Carmen Arape Toyo; Maritza Quintero; Carla Solano; Oscar Sedano Santiago; Janet Grisel Huamán Sotomayor; Cesar Cefferino; Guillermo E Py; Marcelo J Audisio; Walter Javier Spindler; Horacio Berman; Carla Airoldi; Rómulo Wong; Ana Laura Álvarez Del Castillo Araujo; Mario E Díaz; Carmen Cerón Villaquiran; Rubén Darío Mantilla; José Alexandre Mendonça; Inês Guimarães da Silveira; Aline Defaveri do Prado; Melissa Cláudia Bisi; Violeta Rosario; Jeannette Medrano-Sánchez; Roberto Muñoz-Louis; Ana Cecilia Lozada-Navarro; Araceli Bernal; Maribel Lozano; Carlos Pineda Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 2.980
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
Authors: Helga Raquel Garcia Ferrer; Alexander Azan; Isa Iraheta; Joan Von Feldt; Luis R Espinoza; Julia Manasson; Jose U Scher; Abraham Garcia Kutzbach; Alexis Ogdie Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Lucio Ventura-Ríos; Guadalupe Sánchez-Bringas; Carlos Pineda; Cristina Hernández-Díaz; Anthony Reginato; Magaly Alva; Marcelo Audisio; Ana Bertoli; Tomas Cazenave; Marwin Gutiérrez; Claudia Mora; Guillermo Py; Oscar Sedano; Carla Solano; Eugenio de Miguel Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2016-05-28 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Yuan Yuan; Chang Liu; Xi Xiang; Tong-Ling Yuan; Li Qiu; Yi Liu; Yu-Bin Luo; Y Zhao; Martin Herrmann Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Eleonora Norkuviene; Mykolas Petraitis; Indre Apanaviciene; Dalia Virviciute; Asta Baranauskaite Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 1.671