ArticleArthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
Clinical Impact of Multiparametric Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Energy Computed Tomography in Arthritis Imaging: A Prospective Single-Center Study.
Article in Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the influence of contrast-enhanced dual-energy computed tomography (CE-DECT) in detecting and differentiating rheumatic joint diseases of the hand.
methodsIn this prospective study, patients with suspected arthritis of the hand were investigated consecutively alongside the standard clinical procedure. CE-DECT with sequential rotations was performed in all patients before and 3-minutes after weight-adapted contrast agent application. Reconstructions included two-material decomposition for tophus imaging, virtual noncalcium for bone marrow edema, and CT subtraction for soft-tissue inflammation. All postprocessed images and original CT reconstructions were rated by two radiologists in consensus to generate an imaging diagnosis. Imaging findings in CE-DECT were juxtaposed with the initial and final evaluations by referring rheumatologists. This evaluation focused on surrogate performance criteria, emphasizing the added diagnostic value of CE-DECT in detecting specific imaging biomarkers associated with various arthritic pathologies. A subsequent survey assessed CE-DECT's diagnostic utility and impact on patient management, rated on a 1 to 10 scale. Descriptive statistics were employed.
resultsOverall, 136 patients were included in the analysis. In 119 patients (87.5%), the CE-DECT findings agreed with the final diagnosis. In 67 patients (49.2%), the diagnosis was changed following CE-DECT. Rheumatologists rated CE-DECT's diagnostic utility at a mean ± SD of 8.5 ± 2.1 and its contribution to patient management at 8.4 ± 1.8.
conclusionCE-DECT showed high value for diagnosis and management of patients with suspected inflammatory arthritis. Its diverse diagnostic capabilities suggest that it can develop an important addition to current clinical workup pathways.
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.