ReviewZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2020
[Imaging in patients with axial spondylarthritis with focus on new bone formation].
Review in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
To summarize, the currently available imaging procedures have various possibilities to visualize or sometimes to predict the osteogenesis pathognomonic for axial spondylarthritis (axSpA). The individual imaging techniques of X‑rays, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) all have strengths and weaknesses in the diagnostics of axSpA. The generally easily available X‑ray imaging rapidly provides information on the condition of large sections of the skeleton. In particular, it can depict the chronic stages with various structural alterations of the sacroiliac joint and syndesmophytes and ankylosis of the spine. The CT technique, which principally has the same contrast as X‑rays, also shows pathological ossifications but without superimpositions, with better resolution of details and a higher dimensionality. The MRI technique has a superior soft tissue contrast so that acute inflammatory stages, such as bone marrow edema and erosion of the edges of vertebrae of the spine (shiny corners, Romanus lesions) or erosions and bone marrow edema of the sacroiliac joint are easily visible. Bony reconstruction processes can be visualized better in X‑ray imaging and particularly in CT, which increases the evidential value of X‑ray, CT and MRI techniques. The positions of conventional radiography and MRI are well-established in the diagnostic algorithm; however, low-dose CT of the spine is still in the experimental stage but the initial results look promising.
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.