ArticleGout, urate, and crystal deposition disease2024
A Novel Polarized Light Microscope for the Examination of Birefringent Crystals in Synovial Fluid.
Article in Gout, urate, and crystal deposition disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The gold standard for crystal arthritis diagnosis relies on the identification of either monosodium urate (MSU) or calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystals in synovial fluid. With the goal of enhanced crystal detection, we adapted a standard compensated polarized light microscope (CPLM) with a polarized digital camera and multi-focal depth imaging capabilities to create digital images from synovial fluid mounted on microscope slides. Using this single-shot computational polarized light microscopy (SCPLM) method, we compared rates of crystal detection and raters' preference for image. Methods: Microscope slides from patients with either CPP, MSU, or no crystals in synovial fluid were acquired using CPLM and SCPLM methodologies. Detection rate, sensitivity, and specificity were evaluated by presenting expert crystal raters with (randomly sorted) CPLM and SCPLM digital images, from FOV above clinical samples. For each FOV and each method, each rater was asked to identify crystal suspects and their level of certainty for each crystal suspect and crystal type (MSU vs. CPP). Results: For the 283 crystal suspects evaluated, SCPLM resulted in higher crystal detection rates than did CPLM, for both CPP (51%. vs. 28%) and MSU (78% vs. 46%) crystals. Similarly, sensitivity was greater for SCPLM for CPP (0.63 vs. 0.35) and MSU (0.88 vs. 0.52) without giving up much specificity resulting in higher AUC. Conclusions: Subjective and objective measures of greater detection and higher certainty were observed for SCPLM over CPLM, particularly for CPP crystals. The digital data associated with these images can ultimately be incorporated into an automated crystal detection system that provides a quantitative report on crystal count, size, and morphology.
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.