Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27038489›Full record

ArticleOsteoarthritis and cartilage2016

Synovial volume vs synovial measurements from dynamic contrast enhanced MRI as measures of response in osteoarthritis.

A D Gait, R Hodgson, M J Parkes, C E Hutchinson, T W O'Neill, N Maricar, E J Marjanovic, T F Cootes, D T Felson

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoarthritis and cartilage, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Imaging of Synovial Inflammation in Osteoarthritis, From theAJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. MRI of synovitis and joint fluid.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

A D GaitWolfson Molecular Imaging Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Centre for Imaging Sciences, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
R HodgsonCentre for Imaging Sciences, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; NIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK; Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
M J ParkesArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Institute for Inflammation and Repair, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; NIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
C E HutchinsonWarwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
T W O'NeillArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Institute for Inflammation and Repair, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; NIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK; Department of Rheumatology, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
N MaricarArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Institute for Inflammation and Repair, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; NIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK; Department of Rheumatology, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
E J MarjanovicArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Institute for Inflammation and Repair, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
T F CootesCentre for Imaging Sciences, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
D T FelsonArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Institute for Inflammation and Repair, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; NIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK; Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: dfelson@bu.edu.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBBoston University · USUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Arthritis Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSynovium is increasingly a target of osteoarthritis (OA) treatment, yet its optimal measurement is unclear. Using dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI in knee OA patients before and after intraarticular steroid injection, we compared the responsiveness of static synovial volume measures to measures of dynamic changes in synovial enhancement, changes that are strongly related to synovial vascularity.

methodsNinety three patients underwent DCE-MRI before and 1-2 weeks after intra-articular injection of 80 mg methylprednisolone. Synovium was segmented and volume, relative enhancement rate (RER), maximum relative enhancement (REmax), late relative enhancement (RElate) and pharmacokinetic parameters (K(trans), ve) were calculated. KOOS (​knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score) pain score was recorded before and after injection. Standardized change scores were calculated for each parameter. Linear regression and Pearson's correlations were used to investigate the relationship between change in MRI parameters and change in pain.

resultsThe change in standardized score for the measures of synovial enhancement, RElate and REmax were -0.58 (95% CI -0.79 to -0.37) and -0.62 (95% CI -0.83 to -0.41) respectively, whereas the score for synovial volume was -0.30 (-0.52 to -0.09). Further, change in knee pain correlated more strongly with changes in enhancement (for both REmax and RElate, r = -0.27 (95% CI -0.45 to -0.07)) than with changes in synovial volume -0.15 (-0.35 to 0.05).

conclusionThis study suggests DCE-MRI derived measures of synovial enhancement may be more sensitive to the response to treatment and more strongly associated with changes in pain than synovial volume and may be better outcomes for assessment of structural effects of treatment in OA.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, KneeContrast MediaHumansInjections, Intra-ArticularKnee JointMagnetic Resonance ImagingSynovial MembraneSynovitisContrast MediaDCE-MRIMagnetic resonance imagingOsteoarthritisPainSynovial volumeSynovitis

Identifiers

PMID27038489
PMCPMC4967444
OpenAlexW2314589545

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.