ReviewSkeletal radiology2025
The comprehensive role of dual-energy CT in gout as an advanced diagnostic innovation.
Review in Skeletal radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Axial gout diagnosed by dual-energy CT in a young normouricaemic man with recurrent nephrolithiasis: a case-based review.Rheumatology international · 2026Review
- Tophaceous gout of the knee: successful treatment with transarterial microembolization.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Precision imaging biomarkers for gout: artifact-specific spectral CT parameters for personalized differentiation of tophi in a prospective study.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Article
- Soft Tissue Masses of the Hand.Seminars in musculoskeletal radiology · 2025Review
- Early-Onset Polyarticular Gout: A Case Report.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Gouty tophi in the thoracic spinal canal with incomplete paraplegia: a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Federated learning-based virtual dual-energy CT generation from single-energy CT for gout detection.Digital healthArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gout is a common and growing health concern globally, marked by the deposition of monosodium urate (MSU) crystals in joints and soft tissues. While diagnosis relies on synovial fluid analysis, it is limited by technical difficulties and a notable rate of false negatives. Over the past decade, dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) has emerged as a highly sensitive and less-invasive modality for detecting MSU crystals. DECT offers several advantages, including the ability to visualize both intra- and extra-articular MSU deposits and to monitor crystal burden over time. It also aids in treatment planning by accurately assessing the therapeutic response. However, sensitivity of DECT can be lower in early-stage gout, and artifacts can occasionally result in false positives. Recent studies have highlighted new values of using DECT, such as predicting future flares in gout patients. In this review, we focus on the comprehensive clinical utility of DECT and its potential pitfalls in the diagnosis and management of gout.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39690304What 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.