ArticleLa Radiologia medica2017
Which MR sequences should we use for the reliable detection and localization of bone marrow edema in spondyloarthritis?
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bone Marrow Edema and Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Treatment in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging of the sacroiliac joints in SpA: with or without intravenous contrast media? A preliminary report.La Radiologia medica · 2019Article
- Imaging of sacroiliitis: Current status, limitations and pitfalls.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2019Review
- Edema Surrounding Benign Tumors and Tumor-Like Lesions.BioMed research international · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic confidence in detecting and localizing areas of bone marrow edema in the sacroiliac joint of patients with suspected spondyloarthritis using a single-plane method and comparing it with multiplanar unenhanced and enhanced methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with clinical suspicion of spondyloarthritis undergoing an MRI of the sacroiliac joint were included in this retrospective study. To assess sacroiliitis, three methods were applied: single-plane (i.e., para-coronal STIR alone), multiplanar unenhanced (i.e., para-coronal STIR and para-axial PD-fs), and multiplanar enhanced method (i.e., para-coronal and para-axial post-contrast T1-fs). Two 4-point scales were used to evaluate, respectively, the diagnostic confidence in detection and localization of bone marrow edema. The distribution of certain and uncertain rating according to signal intensity and size of the lesions was also calculated.
resultsSeventy-four patients met the inclusion criteria. Both multiplanar methods increased the diagnostic confidence in detection (p < 0.001) and localization (p < 0.001) of sacroiliitis; no significant difference occurred between the multiplanar unenhanced and enhanced methods (p = 0.405 and p = 1.00, respectively, for detection and localization). A statistically significant difference between the distributions of certain and uncertain rating for detection based on the size and signal intensity of each lesion emerged (p = 0.006 and p < 0.001, respectively), whereas no statistically significant difference occurred for the confidence of localization (p = 0.452 and p = 0.694, respectively).
conclusionsThe multiplanar methods increased the diagnostic confidence in detection and localization of sacroiliitis. The absence of a significant difference between the proposed unenhanced and enhanced methods suggests that contrast medium is not mandatory for the detection of sacroiliitis.
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.