Young Ho Lee1, Gwan Gyu Song2. 1. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University Medical Center, Korea University College of Medicine, 73, Inchon-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea. Electronic address: lyhcgh@korea.ac.kr. 2. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University Medical Center, Korea University College of Medicine, 73, Inchon-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasound (US) for patients with gout. METHODS: We searched the Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library databases, and performed a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of US according to the double contour sign, tophus, snowstorm, or bony erosion in patients with gout. RESULTS: In total, 11 studies including 938 patients with gout, and 788 controls (patients with nongout inflammatory arthritis) were available for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of US were 65.1% ([95% confidence interval (CI): 62.0-68.2] and 89.0% (96.6-91.1), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 5.889 (3.365-10.30), 0.359 (0.266-0.485), and 17.61 (11.11-17.92), respectively. The area under the curve of US was 0.858 and the Q⁎ index was 0.789, indicating good diagnostic accuracy. Some between-study heterogeneity was found in the meta-analyses. Meta-regression showed that the sample size, study design, and diagnostic criteria were not sources of heterogeneity, and subgroup meta-analyses did not change the overall diagnostic accuracy. US signs of tophus, snowstorm, or bony erosion besides the double contour sign were not sensitive (54.3%, 30.8%, and 51.6%), but specific (93.2%, 90.6%, and 93.3%) enough as a diagnostic tool. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis of published studies demonstrates that US offers good diagnostic accuracy with high specificity and can play an important role in the diagnosis of gout.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasound (US) for patients with gout. METHODS: We searched the Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library databases, and performed a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of US according to the double contour sign, tophus, snowstorm, or bony erosion in patients with gout. RESULTS: In total, 11 studies including 938 patients with gout, and 788 controls (patients with nongout inflammatory arthritis) were available for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of US were 65.1% ([95% confidence interval (CI): 62.0-68.2] and 89.0% (96.6-91.1), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 5.889 (3.365-10.30), 0.359 (0.266-0.485), and 17.61 (11.11-17.92), respectively. The area under the curve of US was 0.858 and the Q⁎ index was 0.789, indicating good diagnostic accuracy. Some between-study heterogeneity was found in the meta-analyses. Meta-regression showed that the sample size, study design, and diagnostic criteria were not sources of heterogeneity, and subgroup meta-analyses did not change the overall diagnostic accuracy. US signs of tophus, snowstorm, or bony erosion besides the double contour sign were not sensitive (54.3%, 30.8%, and 51.6%), but specific (93.2%, 90.6%, and 93.3%) enough as a diagnostic tool. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis of published studies demonstrates that US offers good diagnostic accuracy with high specificity and can play an important role in the diagnosis of gout.
Authors: Tomas Cazenave; Victoria Martire; Anthony M Reginato; Marwin Gutierrez; Christian Alfredo Waimann; Carlos Pineda; Javier Eduardo Rosa; Santiago Ruta; Oscar Sedano-Santiago; Ana Maria Bertoli; Marcelo Audisio; Cristina Hernandez-Diaz; Lucio Ventura-Rios; Maritza Quintero; Eugenio De Miguel; Ana Laura Alvarez-Del-Castillo-Araujo; Andy Abril; Eliana Natalí Ayala-Ledesma; Edith Alarcon-Isidro; Maria Lida Santiago; Mariana Alejandra Pera; Cecilia Urquiola; Gustavo Rodriguez Gil; Lina Maria Saldarriaga Rivera; Cesar Cefferino; Mariana Benegas; Mario Enrique Diaz Cortes; Maximiliano Bravo; Diana Peiteado; Natalia Anahi Estrella; Roser Areny Micas; Jorge Saavedra Muñoz; Rodolfo Del Carmen Arape Toyo; Maria Soledad Gálvez Elkin; Walter Javier Spindler; Clarisa Sandobal; Josefina Marin; Manuella Lima Gomes Ochtrop; Ricardo Pavao Ayala; Erika Roxana Catay; Guillermo Enrique Py; Gabriel Hector Aguilar; Yvonne Yona Rengel Colina; Carla Antonela Airoldi; Claudia Selene Mora-Trujillo; Maria Paula Kohan; Lorena Evelin Urioste Eguez; Concepción Castillo-Gallego; Jose Francisco Diaz-Coto; Patricio Tate; Carla Magali Saucedo; Oscar Vega-Hinojosa; Cristian Jonatan Troitiño; Maria Florencia Marengo; Priscila Maria Marcaida; Irene Monjo Henry; Roberto Muñoz-Louis; Carla Solano; Felix Reinaldo Fernandez Castillo; Cesar Enrique Graf; Mara Guinsburg; Maria Julia Santa Cruz; David Alejandro Navarta Ortiz; Magaly Alva Linares; Marcos Gabriel Rosemffet Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Jennifer S Weaver; Ernest R Vina; Peter L Munk; Andrea S Klauser; Jamie M Elifritz; Mihra S Taljanovic Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-29 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Edoardo Cipolletta; Jacopo Di Battista; Marco Di Carlo; Andrea Di Matteo; Fausto Salaffi; Walter Grassi; Emilio Filippucci Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 5.156