Ahmed S Zayat1, Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof2, Richard J Wakefield2, Philip G Conaghan2, Paul Emery2, Edward M Vital2. 1. NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK aszayat@doctors.org.uk. 2. NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Musculoskeletal symptoms are common in SLE and are associated with significant morbidity. However, assessing their nature can be challenging, with implications for treatment decisions and measuring response. US has been shown to be valid and reliable for the assessment of other inflammatory arthritides, but data in SLE are more limited. The objectives of this systematic literature review were to determine the characteristics of musculoskeletal US abnormalities in SLE and to evaluate the metric properties of US in the detection and quantification of musculoskeletal symptoms. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature using the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases for studies using musculoskeletal US for assessing SLE. Studies were assessed for quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool and for their metric qualities, including reliability and validity. RESULTS: Nine studies were identified. Most studies investigated construct validity. Rates of abnormality were highly variable: synovitis and tenosynovitis were reported in 25-94% and 28-65% of patients, respectively; power Doppler and erosions were reported in 10-82% and 2-41% of patients, respectively. There was poor to moderate association between US abnormalities and disease activity indices and immunological findings. There was moderate to high risk of bias and there were concerns about applicability in most studies. CONCLUSION: US has potential value in the assessment of musculoskeletal symptoms in SLE. However, there is methodological variation between studies that may account for lack of consensus on US abnormalities. Studies that address these problems are required before US can used as an outcome measure in SLE.
OBJECTIVES:Musculoskeletal symptoms are common in SLE and are associated with significant morbidity. However, assessing their nature can be challenging, with implications for treatment decisions and measuring response. US has been shown to be valid and reliable for the assessment of other inflammatory arthritides, but data in SLE are more limited. The objectives of this systematic literature review were to determine the characteristics of musculoskeletal US abnormalities in SLE and to evaluate the metric properties of US in the detection and quantification of musculoskeletal symptoms. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature using the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases for studies using musculoskeletal US for assessing SLE. Studies were assessed for quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool and for their metric qualities, including reliability and validity. RESULTS: Nine studies were identified. Most studies investigated construct validity. Rates of abnormality were highly variable: synovitis and tenosynovitis were reported in 25-94% and 28-65% of patients, respectively; power Doppler and erosions were reported in 10-82% and 2-41% of patients, respectively. There was poor to moderate association between US abnormalities and disease activity indices and immunological findings. There was moderate to high risk of bias and there were concerns about applicability in most studies. CONCLUSION: US has potential value in the assessment of musculoskeletal symptoms in SLE. However, there is methodological variation between studies that may account for lack of consensus on US abnormalities. Studies that address these problems are required before US can used as an outcome measure in SLE.
Authors: D A Isenberg; A Rahman; E Allen; V Farewell; M Akil; I N Bruce; D D'Cruz; B Griffiths; M Khamashta; P Maddison; N McHugh; M Snaith; L S Teh; C S Yee; A Zoma; C Gordon Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2005-04-06 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Cristina Drenkard; Gaobin Bao; Greg Dennis; Hong J Kan; Priti M Jhingran; Charles T Molta; S Sam Lim Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Richard J Wakefield; Maria Antonietta D'Agostino; Esperanza Naredo; Maya H Buch; Annamaria Iagnocco; Lene Terslev; Mikkel Ostergaard; Marina Backhaus; Walter Grassi; Maxime Dougados; Gerd R Burmester; Benazir Saleem; Eugenio de Miguel; Cristina Estrach; Kei Ikeda; Marwin Gutierrez; Robert Thompson; Peter Balint; Paul Emery Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2012-05-05 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Michael Ziegelasch; Myrthe A M van Delft; Philip Wallin; Thomas Skogh; César Magro-Checa; Gerda M Steup-Beekman; Leendert A Trouw; Alf Kastbom; Christopher Sjöwall Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2016-12-03 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Carina A Ruano; Rui Malheiro; João F Oliveira; Sofia Pinheiro; Luís S Vieira; Maria Francisca Moraes-Fontes Journal: Lupus Sci Med Date: 2017-01-19
Authors: Simon J Otter; Maheswaran Rohan; Kevin A Davies; Sunil Kumar; Peter Gow; Nicola Dalbeth; Michael Corkill; Sam Panthakalam; Keith Rome Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof; Antonios Psarras; Yasser M El-Sherbiny; Elizabeth M A Hensor; Katherine Dutton; Sabih Ul-Hassan; Ahmed S Zayat; Mohammad Shalbaf; Adewonuola Alase; Miriam Wittmann; Paul Emery; Edward M Vital Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 27.973
Authors: Emilio Filippucci; Walter Grassi; Andrea Di Matteo; Gianluca Smerilli; Edoardo Cipolletta; Fausto Salaffi; Rossella De Angelis; Marco Di Carlo Journal: Curr Rheumatol Rep Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 4.592