ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Accuracy of Visual Inspection Alone to Assess Joint Effusions of the Hand: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. 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
Background: Physical examination is the cornerstone of diagnosing and monitoring inflammatory arthritis, with the detection of joint effusions being one of the most crucial components of the examination. Rheumatologists largely rely on palpation, supported by other examination techniques, such as evaluating the range of motion and visual inspection, to assess signs of joint swelling. However, remote care is on the rise in rheumatology, and aside from visual inspection, physical examination of joints is limited during telehealth visits. The ability of rheumatologists to accurately detect hand synovitis through photos or videos of the hands, without the benefit of direct tactile examination, is currently unknown. Objective: This study aimed to assess the accuracy of detecting joint effusions of the hands by remote visual evaluation alone. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients assessed by a rheumatologist in Edmonton, Alberta. Participants were assessed clinically by rheumatologists for the presence of effusions of the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) and proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints between June 13, 2024, and October 29, 2024. Participants had photos and videos of their hands taken by study staff on the same day. Photos and videos were remotely assessed separately by 4 rheumatologists not involved in the initial clinical assessments for the presence of MCP and PIP joint effusions and compared with the clinical assessments. Results: The study cohort included 156 patients (mean age 53, SD 14.2 years, n=105, 67.3% were female and n=52, 33.3% had rheumatoid arthritis), for a total of 3120 MCP and PIP joints. Effusions were identified in 12.8% (20/156) of patients and in 2.2% (69/3120) of joints per clinical assessment. The average visual assessment joint-level sensitivity and specificity of photos were 0.14 (95% CI 0.07-0.19) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.98), respectively. The average visual assessment joint-level sensitivity and specificity of videos were 0.24 (95% CI 0.13-0.33) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99), respectively. The average person-level visual assessment sensitivity and specificity of photos were 0.44 (95% CI 0.30-0.60) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.76-0.87), respectively. The average person-level visual assessment sensitivity and specificity of videos were 0.48 (95% CI 0.35-0.60) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.79-0.89), respectively. Assessor agreement was poor (κ=0.12-0.17). Conclusions: Visual inspection of photos and videos to detect MCP and PIP joint effusions was poor at both the joint and person levels. Patients and rheumatologists should be aware of these limitations when conducting remote telehealth assessments.
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.