ArticleClinical rheumatology2022
The role of dual energy computed tomography in the differentiation of acute gout flares and acute calcium pyrophosphate crystal arthritis.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2022. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Photon-Counting Computed Tomography: Experience in Musculoskeletal Imaging.Korean journal of radiology · 2024Review
- A Narrative Review of Chondrocalcinosis: Clinical Presentation, Diagnosis, and Therapies.Cureus · 2024Review
- Crystal arthropathies and osteoarthritis-where is the link?Skeletal radiology · 2023Review
- Gouty Arthropathy: Review of Clinical Manifestations and Treatment, with Emphasis on Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyse the diagnostic impact of dual energy computed tomography (DECT) in acute gout flares and acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis when compared to the gold standard of arthrocentesis with compensated polarised light microscopy. Microscopy results were also compared to musculoskeletal ultrasound (MUS), conventional radiographs, and the suspected clinical diagnosis (SCD).
methodsThirty-six patients with a suspected gout flare (n = 24) or acute CPP crystal arthritis (n = 11, n = 1 suffered from neither) who received a DECT and underwent arthrocentesis were included. Two independent readers assessed DECT images for signs of monosodium urate crystals or calcium pyrophosphate deposition.
resultsSensitivity of DECT for gout was 63% (95% CI 0.41-0.81) with a specificity of 92% (0.41-0.81) while sensitivity and specificity for acute CPP arthritis were 55% (0.23-0.83) and 92% (0.74-0.99), respectively. MUS had the highest sensitivity of all imaging modalities with 92% (0.73-0.99) and a specificity of 83% (0.52-0.98) for gout, while sensitivity and specificity for acute CPP crystal arthritis were 91% (0.59-1.00) and 92% (0.74-0.99), respectively.
conclusionDECT is an adequate non-invasive diagnostic tool for acute gout flares but might have a lower sensitivity than described by previous studies. Both MUS and SCD had higher sensitivities than DECT for acute gout flares and acute CPP crystal arthritis.
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.