ArticlePloS one2018
Gouty arthritis: Can we avoid unnecessary dual-energy CT examinations using prior radiographs?
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Medical overuse of therapies and diagnostics in rheumatology.Clinical rheumatology · 2021Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe dual-energy CT (DECT) algorithm for urate detection is feasible only if hyperdense deposits are present. Based on our experience, around half of the performed DECT examinations show no such deposits and thus were useless for this indication. Our diagnostic accuracy study investigates whether conventional radiographs can serve as gatekeeper test prior to DECT for reliable exclusion of such radiopaque deposits. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, 77 clinically indicated DECT examinations of the hand (n = 29), foot (n = 36) and ankle (n = 12) of 55 patients (13 female, mean age 62±15 years) with suspected gouty arthritis were included. Two blinded readers independently evaluated DECT, gray-scale CT images (reference standard) and corresponding standardized radiographs for the presence/location of dense soft tissue deposits.
resultsInterreader agreement for detection of soft tissue deposits with DECT and radiographs was excellent (DECT: both readers, κ = 1; radiographs: both readers, κ = 0.94). DECT showed soft tissue deposits in 54/77 DECT (70%) scans. 30/54 scans (56%) showed deposits on the corresponding radiographs, while in 24 scans (44%) no deposits were seen on radiographs. Test performance of radiographs for soft tissue deposit detection: sensitivity 56%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, NPV 48.9%, and accuracy 69%. Low density of the deposits was the main reasons for false-negative radiographs (19 cases, 79%), followed by superimposition of deposits by osseous structures (5 cases, 21%).
conclusionConventional radiographs of the hand, foot and ankle cannot serve as a gatekeeper test for reliable exclusion of radiopaque soft tissue deposits prior to DECT.
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.