ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2025
Ultrasound of the forefeet besides the hands in patients at risk for rheumatoid arthritis: is it worth the effort? A longitudinal cohort study.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveUS can detect subclinical joint-inflammation in patients with clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA), which is valuable as predictor for RA development. In most research protocols both hands and forefeet are scanned, but it is unclear if US of the forefeet has additional value for predicting RA, especially since synovial hypertrophy in MTP-joints of healthy individuals is also common. To explore the possibility to omit scanning of the forefeet we determined if US of the forefeet is of additional predictive value for RA-development in CSA patients.
methodsCSA patients of two independent cohorts underwent US of the hands and forefeet. We analysed the association between RA-development and US-positivity for the full US-protocol, the full US-protocol with correction for gray scale (GS)-findings in the forefeet of healthy and the protocol without forefeet.
resultsIn total, 298 CSA patients were studied. In patients with a positive US, subclinical joint-inflammation was mostly present in the hands (90-86%). Only 10-14% of patients had subclinical joint-inflammation solely in the forefeet. US-positivity was associated with inflammatory arthritis development in both cohorts, with HRs 2.6 (95% CI 0.9-7.5) and 3.1 (95% CI 1.5-6.4) for the full protocol, 3.1 (95% CI 1.3-7.7) and 2.7 (95% CI 1.3-5.4) for the full US-protocol with correction, and 3.1 (95% CI 1.4-6.9) and 2.8 (95% CI 1.4-5.6) without the forefeet. AUROCs were equal across both cohorts.
conclusionThe forefeet can be omitted when US is used for the prediction of RA-development in CSA patients. This is due to the finding that subclinical joint-inflammation in the forefeet without concomitant inflammation in the hands is infrequent.
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.