Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27994095›Full record

ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2017

Diffusion-weighted imaging is a sensitive biomarker of response to biologic therapy in enthesitis-related arthritis.

Timothy J P Bray, Kanimozhi Vendhan, Nicola Ambrose, David Atkinson, Shonit Punwani, Corinne Fisher, Debajit Sen, Yiannis Ioannou, Margaret A Hall-Craggs

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Timothy J P BrayUniversity College London Centre for Medical Imaging (Academic Radiology), NW1 2PG.
Kanimozhi VendhanUniversity College London Centre for Medical Imaging (Academic Radiology), NW1 2PG.
Nicola AmbroseArthritis Research UK Centre for Adolescent Rheumatology, University College London, London.
David AtkinsonUniversity College London Centre for Medical Imaging (Academic Radiology), NW1 2PG.
Shonit PunwaniUniversity College London Centre for Medical Imaging (Academic Radiology), NW1 2PG.
Corinne FisherArthritis Research UK Centre for Adolescent Rheumatology, University College London, London.
Debajit SenArthritis Research UK Centre for Adolescent Rheumatology, University College London, London.
Yiannis IoannouArthritis Research UK Centre for Adolescent Rheumatology, University College London, London.
Margaret A Hall-CraggsUniversity College London Centre for Medical Imaging (Academic Radiology), NW1 2PG.
University College London · GB

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 20164Versus Arthritis 20762
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The aim was to evaluate diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) as a tool for measuring treatment response in adolescents with enthesitis-related arthropathy (ERA). Methods: Twenty-two adolescents with ERA underwent routine MRI and DWI before and after TNF inhibitor therapy. Each patient's images were visually scored by two radiologists using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada system, and sacroiliac joint apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and normalized ADC (nADC) were measured for each patient. Therapeutic clinical response was defined as an improvement of ⩾ 30% physician global assessment and radiological response defined as ⩾ 2.5-point reduction in Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada score. We compared ADC and nADC changes in responders and non-responders using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. Results: For both radiological and clinical definitions of response, reductions in ADC and nADC after treatment were greater in responders than in non-responders (for radiological response: ADC: P < 0.01; nADC: P = 0.055; for clinical response: ADC: P = 0.33; nADC: P = 0.089). ADC and nADC could predict radiological response with a high level of sensitivity and specificity and were moderately sensitive and specific predictors of clinical response (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves were as follows: ADC: 0.97, nADC: 0.82 for radiological response; and ADC: 0.67, nADC: 0.78 for clinical response). Conclusion: DWI measurements reflect the response to TNF inhibitor treatment in ERA patients with sacroiliitis as defined using radiological criteria and may also reflect clinical response. DWI is more objective than visual scoring and has the potential to be automated. ADC/nADC could be used as biomarkers of sacroiliitis in the clinic and in clinical trials.

Indexed as

AdolescentAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, JuvenileBiological ProductsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSacroiliac JointSacroiliitisTreatment OutcomeTumor Necrosis Factor-alphaAntirheumatic AgentsBiological ProductsTumor Necrosis Factor-alphaadolescentsapparent diffusion coefficientarthritisbiomarkersdiffusion-weighted imaginginflammationjuvenile idiopathic arthritismagnetic resonance imagingspondyloarthritis

Identifiers

PMID27994095
PMCPMC5850817
OpenAlexW2567681953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.