ArticleClinical rheumatology2021
Gout of ankle and foot: DECT versus US for crystal detection.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of novel multiparametric second-generation dual-layer spectral detector CT in gouty arthritis.European radiology · 2025Article
- Applications of dual-energy CT in acute musculoskeletal and trauma imaging-a review.Skeletal radiology · 2024Review
- Osteomyelitis of the Lower Limb: Diagnostic Accuracy of Dual-Energy CT versus MRI.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Tongbixiao Pills Improve Gout by Reducing Uric Acid Levels and Inhibiting Inflammation.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and ultrasound (US) in detecting monosodium urate (MSU) crystals in the ankle and foot in patients with acute gouty arthritis.
methodsBilateral ankle and foot were examined by DECT and US and the differences between the findings were compared.
resultsA total of 50 patients underwent DECT and US examinations. At the patient level, the overall positivity of crystal deposition detected by DECT was higher than that by US (92% vs 68%, P = 0.005). The agreement of detecting crystal deposition between DECT and US was not very strong (К = 0.44, P = 0.003). At different joint/area levels, there were significant differences between the two examinations in the area of the dorsum (36% vs 12%, P = 0.009) and metatarsal bone (34% vs 12%, P = 0.017), but the sensitivity of DECT and US was similar in the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTP) and ankle areas (P>0.05). Agreement between the two examinations in the ankle and first MTP was very strong (К = 0.86, P < 0.001; К = 0.79, P < 0.001, respectively). However, agreement between the two examinations in other joints/areas was poor.
conclusionThese findings indicated that DECT should be the first choice for acute gouty arthritis in patients with ankle and foot involvement. Key Points • There is little data regarding DECT and US in detecting MSU crystals in the ankle and foot in patients with acute gouty arthritis. • The overall positivity of crystal deposition detected by DECT was higher than that by US, but the sensitivity of DECT and US was similar in the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTP) and ankle areas. • Agreement between the two examinations in the ankle and first MTP was very strong; however, agreement between the two examinations in other joints/areas was poor.
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.