ArticleClinical rheumatology2017
Ultrasonography assessment of heel entheses in patients with spondyloarthritis: a comparative study with magnetic resonance imaging and conventional radiography.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A clinical practice guideline for the screening and assessment of enthesitis in patients with spondyloarthritis.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Guideline
- Reactive arthritis before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.Clinical rheumatology · 2022Review
- Enthesitis in Psoriatic Arthritis, the Sonographic Perspective.Current rheumatology reports · 2021Review
- Do ankle, hindfoot, and heel ultrasound findings predict the symptomatology and quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis patients?Journal of ultrasonography · 2020Article
- Clinical and MRI response to dose reduction of an etanercept-biosimilar for hip arthritis in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: an observational, retrospective cohort study.Clinical rheumatology · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to determine the agreement between ultrasonography (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and conventional radiography (CR) in the detection of findings indicative of enthesopathy in spondyloarthritis (SpA) patients. A cross-sectional study was performed in 40 SpA patients. Heel entheses (Achilles tendon and plantar fascia) were bilaterally examined by US, MRI, and CR. The three imaging modalities were carried out by three independent operators blinded to the other imaging modality data. Soft tissue abnormalities indicative of enthesopathy as thickening, structural changes, and bursitis were assessed by both US and MRI, and cortical bone abnormalities indicative of enthesopathy as erosions and enthesophytes were assessed by the three imaging modalities. The unweighted kappa values between US and MRI were 0.80, 0.66, 0.69, 0.70, and 0.70 for thickening, structural changes, bursitis, enthesophytes, and bone erosions, respectively. With respect to the detection of enthesophytes, the unweighted kappa values between CR and both US and MRI were 0.78 and 0.76, respectively. At last, for the recognition of bone erosions, the unweighted kappa values between CR and both US and MRI were 0.38 and 0.45, respectively. Using MRI as standard reference method, US was more sensitive with respect to CR revealing bone erosions. The present study provides evidence about the high overall agreement between US and MRI for all abnormal comparable findings at entheseal level and between US, MRI, and CR for the detection of enthesophytes in SpA patients.
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.