Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29374353›Full record

ArticleClinical rheumatology2018

Gouty arthritis: decision-making following dual-energy CT scan in clinical practice, a retrospective analysis.

M Gamala, S P Linn-Rasker, M Nix, B G F Heggelman, J M van Laar, P C M Pasker-de Jong, J W G Jacobs, R Klaasen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

8 authors.

M GamalaDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. m.gamala@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7380-8391
S P Linn-RaskerDepartment of Rheumatology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
M NixDepartment of Radiology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
B G F HeggelmanDepartment of Radiology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
J M van LaarDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
P C M Pasker-de JongMeander Academy Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
J W G JacobsDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
R KlaasenDepartment of Rheumatology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To establish whether dual-energy CT (DECT) is a diagnostic tool, i.e., associated with initiation or discontinuation of a urate lowering drug (ULD). Secondly, to determine whether DECT results (gout deposition y/n) can be predicted by clinical and laboratory variables. Digital medical records of 147 consecutive patients with clinical suspicion of gout were analyzed retrospectively. Clinical data including medication before and after DECT, lab results, and results from diagnostic joint aspiration and DECT were collected. The relationship between DECT results and clinical and laboratory results was evaluated by univariate regression analyses; predictors showing a p < 0.10 were entered in a multivariate logistic regression model with the DECT result as outcome variable. A backward stepwise technique was applied. After the DECT, 104 of these patients had a clinical diagnosis of gout based on the clinical judgment of the rheumatologist, and in 84 of these patients, the diagnosis was confirmed by demonstration of monosodium urate (MSU) crystals in synovial fluid (SF) or by positive DECT. After DECT, the current ULD was modified in 33 (22.4%) of patients; in 29 of them, ULD was started and in 1 it was intensified. Following DECT, the current ULD was stopped in three patients. In the multivariable regression model, cardiovascular disease (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.26-7.47), disease duration (OR 1.008, 95% CI 1.001-1.016), frequency of attack (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.07-1.42), and creatinine clearance (OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.91-1.00) were independently associated with positive DECT results. We found that the DECT result increases the confidence of the prescribers in their decision to initiation or discontinuation of urate lowering therapy regimen in of mono- or oligoarthritis. It may be a useful imaging tool for patients who cannot undergo joint aspiration because of contraindications or with difficult to aspirate joints, or those who refuse joint aspiration. We also suggest the use of DECT in cases where a definitive diagnosis cannot be made from signs, symptoms, and MSU analysis alone.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingAdultAgedArthritis, GoutyFemaleGoutHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsRegression AnalysisRetrospective StudiesSynovial FluidTomography, X-Ray ComputedUric AcidUric AcidDual-energy CT scanGouty arthritisMonosodium urate

Identifiers

PMID29374353
PMCPMC6006188

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.