ArticleChinese medical journal2017
Role of Diffusion-weighted and Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Differentiating Activity of Ankylosing Spondylitis.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent advances in ankylosing spondylitis: understanding the disease and management.F1000Research · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies showed that combining apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value with the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) index value might provide a reliable evaluation of the activity of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and that contrast-enhanced (CE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is unnecessary. However, the results were based on confirming only a small random sample. This study aimed to assess the role of CE-MRI in differentiating the disease activity of AS by comparing ADC value with a large sample.
methodsA total of 115 patients with AS were enrolled in accordance with Bath AS Disease Activity Index and laboratory indices, and 115 patients were divided into two groups, including active group (n = 69) and inactive group (n = 46). SPARCC, ΔSI, and ADC values were obtained from the short tau inversion recovery (STIR), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and CE-MRI, respectively. One-way analysis of variance and receiver operating characteristic analysis were performed for all parameters.
resultsThe optimal cutoff values (with sensitivity, specificity, respective area under the curve, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio) for the differentiation between active and inactive groups are as follows: SPARCC = 6 (72.06%, 82.61%, 0.836, 4.14, 0.34); ΔSI (%) = 153 (80.6%, 84.78%, 0.819, 5.3, 0.23); ADC value = 1.15 × 10-3 mm2/s (72.73%, 81.82%, 0.786, 4, 0.33). No statistical differences were found among the predictive values of SPARCC, ΔSI, and ADC. Multivariate analysis showed no significant difference between the combination of SPARCC and ADC values with and without ΔSI.
conclusionsUsing large sample, we concluded that the combination of STIR and DWI would play significant roles in assessing the disease activity, and CE-MRI sequence is not routinely used in imaging of AS to avoid renal fibrosis and aggravation of kidney disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.