ArticlePloS one2025
Could optical coherence tomography detect monosodium urate crystal deposition at artery walls? An exploratory, phantom-based study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSome reports suggest monosodium urate (MSU) crystals may deposit in artery walls. This exploratory study evaluated the capacity of optical coherence tomography (OCT) to detect MSU crystals in vessel phantoms.
methodsWe used 3D-printed blood vessel phantoms made of photosensitive acrylic resins, with varying compliances. 0.1cc volume injections of centrifugated human synovial fluids containing MSU crystals, calcium pyrophosphate crystals or 0.9% saline were performed in four predefined locations in the phantoms. OCT was subsequently performed in a blinded manner by two cardiologists, experts in the technique. Two exploratory definitions for MSU crystal deposits were used, depicting a lesion with high attenuation (#1) or also with a linear morphology (#2). Diagnostic properties of both definitions were studied building 2x2 tables.
resultsDefinition #1 was found by OCT in 3/8 (37.5%) of MSU injections and in 3/16 (18.8%) of controls, what yielded a sensitivity of 37.5%, specificity of 81.3%, positive and predictive values of 50.0% and 72.2% respectively, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 2 and 0.77. Definition #2 was only seen in 2 cases, both with MSU crystals (8.3%); this definition showed a sensitivity of 25.0%, specificity of 100%, positive and predictive values of 100.0% and 72.7%, a negative likelihood ratio of 0.8, while the positive ratio could not be calculated. Data seemed to be slightly better with Semirigid phantoms.
conclusionThis preliminary, preclinical data suggest OCT could detect MSU crystals deposits in vessel walls.
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.