Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24386468›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2013

Imaging non-specific wrist pain: interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy of SPECT/CT, MRI, CT, bone scan and plain radiographs.

Martin W Huellner, Alexander Bürkert, Klaus Strobel, María del Sol Pérez Lago, Lennart Werner, Urs Hug, Urs von Wartburg, Burkhardt Seifert, Patrick Veit-Haibach

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. SPECT/CT arthrography.The British journal of radiology · 2018
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The EANM practice guidelines for bone scintigraphy.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016
    Article
  9. The value of SPECT/CT in carpal boss.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2015
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Martin W HuellnerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Alexander BürkertDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Klaus StrobelDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
María del Sol Pérez LagoDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Lennart WernerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Urs HugDepartment of Hand and Plastic Surgery, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Urs von WartburgDepartment of Hand and Plastic Surgery, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Burkhardt SeifertDivision of Biostatistics, Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Patrick Veit-HaibachDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
University of Lucerne · CHInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeChronic hand and wrist pain is a common clinical issue for orthopaedic surgeons and rheumatologists. The purpose of this study was 1. To analyze the interobserver agreement of SPECT/CT, MRI, CT, bone scan and plain radiographs in patients with non-specific pain of the hand and wrist, and 2. to assess the diagnostic accuracy of these imaging methods in this selected patient population. MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty-two consecutive patients with non-specific pain of the hand or wrist were evaluated retrospectively. All patients had been imaged by plain radiographs, planar early-phase imaging (bone scan), late-phase imaging (SPECT/CT including bone scan and CT), and MRI. Two experienced and two inexperienced readers analyzed the images with a standardized read-out protocol. Reading criteria were lesion detection and localisation, type and etiology of the underlying pathology. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement were determined for all readers and imaging modalities.

resultsThe most accurate modality for experienced readers was SPECT/CT (accuracy 77%), followed by MRI (56%). The best performing, though little accurate modality for inexperienced readers was also SPECT/CT (44%), followed by MRI and bone scan (38% each). The interobserver agreement of experienced readers was generally high in SPECT/CT concerning lesion detection (kappa 0.93, MRI 0.72), localisation (kappa 0.91, MRI 0.75) and etiology (kappa 0.85, MRI 0.74), while MRI yielded better results on typification of lesions (kappa 0.75, SPECT/CT 0.69). There was poor agreement between experienced and inexperienced readers in SPECT/CT and MRI.

conclusionsSPECT/CT proved to be the most helpful imaging modality in patients with non-specific wrist pain. The method was found reliable, providing high interobserver agreement, being outperformed by MRI only concerning the typification of lesions. We believe it is beneficial to integrate SPECT/CT into the diagnostic imaging algorithm of chronic wrist pain.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdolescentAdultAgedChronic PainDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityWrist

Identifiers

PMID24386468
PMCPMC3875572
OpenAlexW2026099051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.