Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28732526›Full record

Trial reportArthritis research & therapy2017

Ultrasonography and dual-energy computed tomography provide different quantification of urate burden in gout: results from a cross-sectional study.

Tristan Pascart, Agathe Grandjean, Laurène Norberciak, Vincent Ducoulombier, Marguerite Motte, Hélène Luraschi, Marie Vandecandelaere, Catherine Godart, Eric Houvenagel, Nasser Namane and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Arthritis research & therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-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, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Advanced imaging techniques in crystal arthritis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tristan PascartDepartment of Rheumatology, Lille Catholic Hospitals, University of Lille, F-59160, Lomme, France. pascart.tristan@ghicl.net.
Agathe GrandjeanDepartment of Rheumatology, Lille Catholic Hospitals, University of Lille, F-59160, Lomme, France.
Laurène NorberciakDepartment of Medical Research, Biostatistics, Lille Catholic Hospitals, University of Lille, F-59160, Lomme, France.
Vincent DucoulombierDepartment of Rheumatology, Lille Catholic Hospitals, University of Lille, F-59160, Lomme, France.
Marguerite MotteDepartment of Rheumatology, Lille Catholic Hospitals, University of Lille, F-59160, Lomme, France.
Hélène LuraschiDepartment of Rheumatology, Lille Catholic Hospitals, University of Lille, F-59160, Lomme, France.
Marie VandecandelaereDepartment of Rheumatology, Lille Catholic Hospitals, University of Lille, F-59160, Lomme, France.
Catherine GodartDepartment of Rheumatology, Lille Catholic Hospitals, University of Lille, F-59160, Lomme, France.
Eric HouvenagelDepartment of Rheumatology, Lille Catholic Hospitals, University of Lille, F-59160, Lomme, France.
Nasser NamaneDepartment of Radiology, Lille Catholic Hospitals, University of Lille, F-59160, Lomme, France.
Jean-François BudzikDepartment of Radiology, Lille Catholic Hospitals, University of Lille, F-59160, Lomme, France.
Université Catholique de Lille · FRUniversité de Lille · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUltrasonography (US) and dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) can assess urate burden in gout. The objective of this study was to compare the quantification of urate deposition provided by US to the one provided by DECT.

methodsPatients with a diagnosis of gout were prospectively recruited to undergo quantification of urate deposition using US and DECT. US examination for tophi and the double contour (DC) sign was performed on the knees and feet and corresponding DECT scans provided volumes of tophi and of overall urate deposition. The primary endpoint was the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of the volume of the index tophus measured by US and DECT and its 95% confidence interval (CI 95%).

resultsOf the 64 patients included, 34 presented with at least one tophus on US. DECT inter-reader agreement for urate deposition was perfect with an ICC of 1 (1-1) and good for the measurement of the index tophus with an ICC of 0.69 (0.47-0.83). The ICC for the measurement of the index tophus between the two techniques was poor with a value of 0.45 (0.1-0.71). The average ratio between the index tophi volume as assessed by DECT and US was 0.65. The number of DC-positive joints did not correlate with DECT volume of overall deposits (Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.23).

conclusionsDECT measurements of tophi give smaller volumes to the same tophi measured with US, and US signs of urate deposition in joints do not correlate with overall DECT volumes of extra-articular deposition.

Indexed as

AgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGoutHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyUric AcidUric AcidDouble contourDual-energy computed tomographyGoutTophusUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID28732526
PMCPMC5521183
OpenAlexW2737516171

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.