Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34263716›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of rheumatology2022

Comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T MRI: both field strengths sensitively detect subclinical inflammation of hand and forefoot in patients with arthralgia.

D I Krijbolder, M Verstappen, F Wouters, L R Lard, Pdm de Buck, J J Veris-van Dieren, J L Bloem, M Reijnierse, Ahm van der Helm-van Mil

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

D I KrijbolderDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
M VerstappenDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
F WoutersDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
L R LardDepartment of Rheumatology, LangeLand Hospital, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.
Pdm de BuckDepartment of Rheumatology, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.
J J Veris-van DierenDepartment of Rheumatology, Reumazorg Zuid West Nederland, Goes, The Netherlands.
J L BloemDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
M ReijnierseDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ahm van der Helm-van MilDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLErasmus MC · NLGGD Zuid Limburg · NLLange Land Ziekenhuis · NLMedisch Centrum Haaglanden · NL

Funding

European Research Council 714312
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of small joints sensitively detects inflammation. This inflammation, and tenosynovitis in particular, has been shown to predict rheumatoid arthritis (RA) development in arthralgia patients. These data have predominantly been acquired on 1.0-1.5 T MRI. However, 3.0 T is now commonly used in practice. Evidence on the comparability of these field strengths is scarce and has never included subtle inflammation in arthralgia patients or tenosynovitis. Therefore, we assessed the comparability of 1.5 T and 3.0 T in detecting subclinical inflammation in arthralgia patients.

methodA total of 2968 locations (joints, bones, tendon sheaths) in the hands and forefeet of 28 patients with small-joint arthralgia, at risk for RA, were imaged on both 1.5 and 3.0 T MRI. Two blinded readers independently scored erosions, osteitis, synovitis, and tenosynovitis, in line with the Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (RAMRIS). Features were summed into inflammation (osteitis, synovitis, tenosynovitis) and RAMRIS (inflammation and erosions). Agreement was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for continuous scores and after dichotomization into presence or absence of inflammation, on patient and location levels.

resultsInterreader ICCs were excellent (> 0.90). Comparing 1.5 and 3.0 T revealed an ICC of 0.90 for inflammation and RAMRIS. ICCs for individual inflammation features were: tenosynovitis 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.74-0.94), synovitis 0.65 (0.24-0.84), and osteitis 0.96 (0.91-0.98). Agreement was 83% for inflammation and 89% for RAMRIS. Analyses on the location level showed similar results.

conclusionAgreement on subclinical inflammation between 1.5 T and 3.0 T was excellent. Although synovitis scores were slightly different, synovitis often occurs simultaneously with other inflammatory signs, suggesting that scientific results on the predictive value of MRI-detected inflammation for RA, obtained on 1.5 T MRI, can be generalized to 3.0 T MRI.

Indexed as

Arthritis, RheumatoidOsteitisSynovitisTenosynovitisArthralgiaHumansInflammationMagnetic Resonance ImagingSeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

PMID34263716
PMCPMC7612912
OpenAlexW3178262412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.