ReviewCurrent rheumatology reports2018
Gout: Update on Dual-Energy Computed Tomography with Emphasis on Artifact Identification.
Review in Current rheumatology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Precision imaging biomarkers for gout: artifact-specific spectral CT parameters for personalized differentiation of tophi in a prospective study.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Article
- The comprehensive role of dual-energy CT in gout as an advanced diagnostic innovation.Skeletal radiology · 2025Review
- Burden and distribution of monosodium urate deposition in patients with hyperuricemia and gout: a cross-sectional Chinese population-based dual-energy CT study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Gouty Sacroiliitis: DECT Appearance.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Optimization of dual energy computed tomography post-processing to reduce lower limb artifacts in gout.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Ultrasonography and dual-energy computed tomography: impact for the detection of gouty deposits.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewGout is the most common inflammatory arthritis and is increasing in prevalence and incidence in many countries worldwide. Accurate diagnosis is important to direct treatment that may include chronic medication. Burden quantification and treatment monitoring are key in the effective care of patients with gout. This review highlights the positive impact of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) on the evaluation of gout patients and discusses common imaging artifacts that limit this imaging modality. RECENT
findingsDECT has become the most accurate imaging method for confirming or excluding gout. Of note, however, it has reduced sensitivity in early disease, including initial attacks. Burden quantification is another important role of DECT, which can now be performed using automated software methods, allowing for a more reliable assessment of treatment effect. However, the analysis of gout DECT images can be impeded by artifacts related to the DECT reconstruction technique. DECT is the most sensitive and specific imaging modality for diagnosis, burden quantification, and treatment monitoring in patients with gout. A working knowledge of common DECT artifacts is essential for mitigating their occurance and misinterpretation.
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.