J Chen1, M Liao2, H Zhang1, D Zhu1. 1. Department of Radiology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, No. 169 Donghu Road, Wuchang District, 430071, Wuhan City, Hubei province, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, No. 169 Donghu Road, Wuchang District, 430071, Wuhan City, Hubei province, China. liaomy@whu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare the overall accuracy of ultrasonography (US), with at least one sign positive (double contour, tophus, aggregates), and dual-energy CT in the diagnosis of gouty arthritis. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, EI, Elsevier, Wiley Online Library and Cochrane library were systematically searched for studies on the diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT (DECT) and ultrasound (US) from 2005 to February 2016. After study selection, data and quality assessment, the sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), diagnostic odds rate (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and summary receiver operating contraction racteristic (SROC) curves were calculated. RESULTS: Eleven publications met our inclusion criteria. Of these, six studies were included in the dual-energy CT group, six studies in the US group, and one study compared dual-energy CT and US. The pooled SEN, SPE, DOR, PLR, NLR and SROC of US with at least one sign positive, were 93%, 73%, 37.94, 3.39, 0.11 and 92%, respectively; and of DECT the values were 88%, 85%, 38.70, 5.12, 0.16, 93% and respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, both US and DECT can be used for diagnosis of gouty arthritis, but there are some differences between them regarding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare the overall accuracy of ultrasonography (US), with at least one sign positive (double contour, tophus, aggregates), and dual-energy CT in the diagnosis of gouty arthritis. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, EI, Elsevier, Wiley Online Library and Cochrane library were systematically searched for studies on the diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT (DECT) and ultrasound (US) from 2005 to February 2016. After study selection, data and quality assessment, the sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), diagnostic odds rate (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and summary receiver operating contraction racteristic (SROC) curves were calculated. RESULTS: Eleven publications met our inclusion criteria. Of these, six studies were included in the dual-energy CT group, six studies in the US group, and one study compared dual-energy CT and US. The pooled SEN, SPE, DOR, PLR, NLR and SROC of US with at least one sign positive, were 93%, 73%, 37.94, 3.39, 0.11 and 92%, respectively; and of DECT the values were 88%, 85%, 38.70, 5.12, 0.16, 93% and respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, both US and DECT can be used for diagnosis of gouty arthritis, but there are some differences between them regarding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.
Entities:
Keywords:
At least one sign positive; Dual-energy CT; Gouty arthritis; Monosodium urate crystal deposition; Ultrasound
Authors: Thomas Rettenbacher; Sybille Ennemoser; Harald Weirich; Hanno Ulmer; Frank Hartig; Werner Klotz; Manfred Herold Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-11-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nicola Dalbeth; Jaap Fransen; Tim L Jansen; Tuhina Neogi; H Ralph Schumacher; William J Taylor Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Alexander Huppertz; Kay-Geert A Hermann; Torsten Diekhoff; Moritz Wagner; Bernd Hamm; Wolfgang A Schmidt Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Alexis Ogdie; William J Taylor; Mark Weatherall; Jaap Fransen; Tim L Jansen; Tuhina Neogi; H Ralph Schumacher; Nicola Dalbeth Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Anne-Kathrin Tausche; Tim L Jansen; Hans-Egbert Schröder; Stefan R Bornstein; Martin Aringer; Ulf Müller-Ladner Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2009-08-24 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Tim Bongartz; Katrina N Glazebrook; Steven J Kavros; Naveen S Murthy; Stephen P Merry; Walter B Franz; Clement J Michet; Barath M Akkara Veetil; John M Davis; Thomas G Mason; Kenneth J Warrington; Steven R Ytterberg; Eric L Matteson; Cynthia S Crowson; Shuai Leng; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Garifallia Sakellariou; Carlo Alberto Scirè; Antonella Adinolfi; Alberto Batticciotto; Alessandra Bortoluzzi; Andrea Delle Sedie; Orazio De Lucia; Christian Dejaco; Oscar Massimiliano Epis; Emilio Filippucci; Luca Idolazzi; Andrea Picchianti Diamanti; Alen Zabotti; Annamaria Iagnocco; Georgios Filippou Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2020-05-07
Authors: Sivert Kupfer; Sebastian Winklhofer; Anton S Becker; Oliver Distler; Christine B Chung; Hatem Alkadhi; Tim Finkenstaedt Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-07-10 Impact factor: 3.240