Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35439343›Full record

ArticleArthritis care & research2023

Imaging Features of Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition Disease: Consensus Definitions From an International Multidisciplinary Working Group.

Sara K Tedeschi, Fabio Becce, Tristan Pascart, Ali Guermazi, Jean-François Budzik, Nicola Dalbeth, Georgios Filippou, Annamaria Iagnocco, Minna J Kohler, Jean-Denis Laredo and 5 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Arthritis care & research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Advanced imaging techniques in crystal arthritis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

15 authors.

Sara K TedeschiBrigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0001-9475-1363
Fabio BecceLausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8444-8504
Tristan PascartLille Catholic University, Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-8395-826X
Ali GuermaziBoston Veterans Administration Healthcare System and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jean-François BudzikLille Catholic Hospitals, Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6009-5705
Nicola DalbethUniversity of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-4632-4476
Georgios FilippouLuigi Sacco University Hospital, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1647-2083
Annamaria IagnoccoUniversità degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Minna J KohlerHarvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Jean-Denis LaredoHôpital Lariboisière, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, and Université de Paris, Paris, France.
Stacy E SmithBrigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
F Joseph SimeoneHarvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Janeth YinhHarvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Hyon ChoiHarvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.ORCID 0000-0002-2862-0442
Abhishek AbhishekUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

Studying pseudogout using naturallanguage processing and novelimaging approachesK23AR075070 · NIAMS · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI TEDESCHI, SARA K. · 2019 to 2023
$937k
NIAMS NIH HHS K23 AR075070NIAMS NIH HHS L30 AR070514
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop definitions for imaging features being considered as potential classification criteria for calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease, additional to clinical and laboratory criteria, and to compile example images of CPPD on different imaging modalities.

methodsThe American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology CPPD classification criteria Imaging Advisory Group (IAG) and Steering Committee drafted definitions of imaging features that are characteristic of CPPD on conventional radiography (CR), conventional computed tomography (CT), dual-energy CT (DECT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). An anonymous expert survey was undertaken by a 35-member Combined Expert Committee, including all IAG members. The IAG and 5 external musculoskeletal radiologists with expertise in CPPD convened virtually to further refine item definitions and voted on example images illustrating CR, CT, and DECT item definitions, with ≥90% agreement required to deem them acceptable.

resultsThe Combined Expert Committee survey indicated consensus on all CR definitions. The IAG and external radiologists reached consensus on CT and DECT item definitions, which specify that calcium pyrophosphate deposits appear less dense than cortical bone. The group developed an MRI definition and acknowledged limitations of this modality for CPPD. Ten example images for CPPD were voted acceptable (4 CR, 4 CT, and 2 DECT), and 3 images of basic calcium phosphate deposition were voted acceptable to serve as contrast against imaging features of CPPD.

conclusionAn international group of rheumatologists and musculoskeletal radiologists defined imaging features characteristic of CPPD on CR, CT, and DECT and assembled a set of example images as a reference for future clinical research studies.

Indexed as

CalcinosisChondrocalcinosisCalcium PyrophosphateHumansRadiographyCalcium Pyrophosphate

Identifiers

PMID35439343
PMCPMC9579212

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.