Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34810228›Full record

SynthesisRMD open2021

Value of imaging to guide interventional procedures in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic literature review informing EULAR points to consider.

Philipp Bosch, Francesco Carubbi, Carlo Alberto Scirè, Xenofon Baraliakos, Louise Falzon, Christian Dejaco, Pedro M Machado

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in RMD open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Philipp BoschDepartment of Rheumatology and Immunology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6783-6422
Francesco CarubbiInternal Medicine and Nephrology Unit, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1958-5136
Carlo Alberto ScirèUniversity of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7451-0271
Xenofon BaraliakosRheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet Herne, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9475-9362
Louise FalzonNorthwell Health, New York, New York, USA.
Christian DejacoDepartment of Rheumatology and Immunology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria christian.dejaco@gmx.net.ORCID 0000-0002-0173-0668
Pedro M MachadoCentre for Rheumatology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8411-7972
Medical University of Graz · ATNorthwell Health · USRheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet · DEUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Ferrara · ITUniversity of L'Aquila · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo summarise current data on the value of imaging to guide interventional procedures in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease (RMDs) informing an European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology taskforce.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted to retrieve prospective and retrospective studies published in English and comparing different (imaging) techniques, different settings and procedural protocols to guide interventions in patients with RMDs. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos databases were searched through October 2021. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool for randomised trials V.2 (ROB2), the RoB tool for Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions and the appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies.

resultsSixty-six studies were included (most with moderate/high RoB); 49 were randomised controlled trials, three prospective cohort studies and 14 retrospective studies. Fifty-one studies compared either one imaging technique with another imaging technique, or with palpation-guided interventions. Ultrasound (US) was most frequently studied (49/51), followed by fluoroscopy (10/51). Higher accuracy was found for US or fluoroscopy compared with palpation-guided interventions. Studies comparing different imaging techniques (12/51) did not endorse one specific method. Different settings/equipment for imaging-guided procedures (eg, automatic vs manual syringes) were investigated in three studies, reporting heterogeneous results. Fifteen studies compared different imaging-guided procedures (eg, intra-articular vs periarticular injections).

conclusionHigher accuracy of needle positioning at joints and periarticular structures was seen in most studies when using imaging (especially US) guidance as compared with palpation-guided interventions with the limitation of heterogeneity of data and considerable RoB.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal DiseasesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesUltrasonographyarthritisautoimmune diseaseshealth careMRIoutcome assessmentultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID34810228
PMCPMC8609947
OpenAlexW3217364214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.