ArticleRMD open2025
Diagnostic performance and reliability of robotic ultrasonography and artificial intelligence-driven synovitis assessment in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the Controlled ARTHUR Trial.
Article in RMD open, 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.
- Automated ultrasound in rheumatology: the dawn of a new era.RMD open · 2025Article
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
aimTo evaluate the reliability and diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) driven robotic ultrasonography (RUS) compared with human ultrasonography (HUS) performed by a trained rheumatologist for assessing synovitis in the hands of healthy controls and patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
methods20 healthy controls and 29 patients with RA eligible for initiation or intensification of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, with at least one clinically swollen joint in the hands, were included. The ultrasound robot scanned controls and patients twice without interval, whereas HUS was performed once. Synovitis was scored from 0 to 3 for Greyscale (GS) and Doppler (CD) by RUS (using AI software) and HUS according to the European League Against Rheumatism-OMERACT scoring system (range 0-66).Intrarobot and human-robot reliability and agreement were assessed. Furthermore, the diagnostic performance of RUS for detecting arthritis was evaluated using the clinical arthritis diagnosis as reference.
resultsIntrarobot reliability was moderate to good, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) values of 0.65 (GS) and 0.86 (CD) in patients with RA. Human-robot agreement was moderate, with ICCs of 0.59 (GS) and 0.64 (CD). At joint level, RUS obtained higher scores for MCP joints than HUS, while scores were comparable for other joint groups. The diagnostic accuracy of RUS for detecting clinically-detected arthritis was 59%.
conclusionA moderate to good overall agreement was seen between RUS and HUS in assessing synovitis in RA hands. However, at the joint level, low agreement was observed, particularly for MCP joints in both intrarobot and human-robot comparisons, which affected diagnostic performance.
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.