G Filippou1, A Adinolfi2, A Iagnocco3, E Filippucci4, M A Cimmino5, I Bertoldi2, V Di Sabatino2, V Picerno2, A Delle Sedie6, L M Sconfienza7, B Frediani2, C A Scirè8. 1. Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neurosciences, Rheumatology Section, University of Siena, Siena, Italy. Electronic address: gf.filippou@gmail.com. 2. Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neurosciences, Rheumatology Section, University of Siena, Siena, Italy. 3. Rheumatology Unit, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy. 4. Rheumatology Department, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Jesi, Ancona, Italy. 5. Research Laboratory and Academic Division of Clinical Rheumatology, Dipartimento di Medicina Interna, University of Genoa, Genova, Italy. 6. Rheumatology Unit, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 7. Unit of Radiology, San Donato Hospital, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy. 8. Epidemiology Unit, Italian Society for Rheumatology, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ultrasonography (US) demonstrated to be a promising tool for the diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate deposition disease (CPPD). The aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to collect the definitions for the US elementary lesions and to summarize the available data about US diagnostic accuracy in CPPD. METHODS: We systematically reviewed all the studies that considered US as the index test for CPPD diagnosis without restrictions about the reference test or that provided definitions about US identification of CPPD. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each study and definitions were extrapolated. Subgroup analyses were planned by anatomical site included in the index text and different reference standards. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included in this review. All the studies were eligible for the collection of US findings and all definitions were summarized. US description of elementary lesions appeared heterogeneous among the studies. Regarding US accuracy, 13 articles entered in the meta-analysis. Considering each joint structure, the sensitivity ranged between 0.77 (0.63-0.87) and 0.34 (0.16-0.58) while the specificity varies between 1.00 (0.89-1.00) and 0.92 (0.16-1.00). Considering the reference standards used, the sensibility ranged between 0.34 (0.02-0.65) and 0.87 (0.76-0.99) while specificity ranged between 0.84 (0.52-1.00) and 1.00 (0.99-1.00). CONCLUSION: US is potentially a useful tool for the diagnosis of CPPD but universally accepted definitions and further testing are necessary in order to assess the role of the technique in the diagnostic process.
OBJECTIVE: Ultrasonography (US) demonstrated to be a promising tool for the diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate dihydratedeposition disease (CPPD). The aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to collect the definitions for the US elementary lesions and to summarize the available data about US diagnostic accuracy in CPPD. METHODS: We systematically reviewed all the studies that considered US as the index test for CPPD diagnosis without restrictions about the reference test or that provided definitions about US identification of CPPD. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each study and definitions were extrapolated. Subgroup analyses were planned by anatomical site included in the index text and different reference standards. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included in this review. All the studies were eligible for the collection of US findings and all definitions were summarized. US description of elementary lesions appeared heterogeneous among the studies. Regarding US accuracy, 13 articles entered in the meta-analysis. Considering each joint structure, the sensitivity ranged between 0.77 (0.63-0.87) and 0.34 (0.16-0.58) while the specificity varies between 1.00 (0.89-1.00) and 0.92 (0.16-1.00). Considering the reference standards used, the sensibility ranged between 0.34 (0.02-0.65) and 0.87 (0.76-0.99) while specificity ranged between 0.84 (0.52-1.00) and 1.00 (0.99-1.00). CONCLUSION: US is potentially a useful tool for the diagnosis of CPPD but universally accepted definitions and further testing are necessary in order to assess the role of the technique in the diagnostic process.
Authors: Sara K Tedeschi; Daniel H Solomon; Kazuki Yoshida; Kathleen Vanni; Dong Hyun Suh; Stacy E Smith Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Lucio Ventura-Ríos; Tomas Cazenave; Cristina Hernández-Díaz; Selma Gallegos-Nava; Citlallyc Gómez-Ruiz; Marcos Rosemffet; Karina Silva-Luna; Pedro Rodríguez-Henríquez; Janitzia Vázquez-Mellado; Julio Casasola-Vargas; Esteban Cruz-Arenas; Eugenio M de Miguel Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-05-24
Authors: A Guermazi; M Jarraya; J A Lynch; D T Felson; M Clancy; M Nevitt; C E Lewis; J Torner; T Neogi Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Sara K Tedeschi; Tristan Pascart; Augustin Latourte; Cattleya Godsave; Burak Kundakci; Raymond P Naden; William J Taylor; Nicola Dalbeth; Tuhina Neogi; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Ann Rosenthal; Fabio Becce; Eliseo Pascual; Mariano Andres; Thomas Bardin; Michael Doherty; Hang-Korng Ea; Georgios Filippou; John FitzGerald; Marwin Guitierrez; Annamaria Iagnocco; Tim L Jansen; Minna J Kohler; Frédéric Lioté; Mark Matza; Geraldine M McCarthy; Roberta Ramonda; Anthony M Reginato; Pascal Richette; Jasvinder A Singh; Francisca Sivera; Alexander So; Lisa K Stamp; Janeth Yinh; Chio Yokose; Robert Terkeltaub; Hyon Choi; Abhishek Abhishek Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 5.178