ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Reliability of CEUS and MRI for grading knee-joint inflammation in juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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.
- Impact of central review and MRI image quality on prostate cancer diagnosis and biopsy decision-making in referred patients.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the reliability of contrast-enhanced MRI (CEMRI) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for grading arthritis. MATERIALS AND
methodsProspective study on 1-18-year-olds with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), performed during 2023/2024. All had CEUS and CEMRI of the knee on the same day. Two observers independently scored the US-video-clip for inflammation (0-3 scale), with a second reading after 6 weeks. Using VueBox®, peak enhancement (PE), time to peak (TTP) and wash-in area under the curve (WiAUC) were measured by both observers, separately. The MRIs were scored for inflammation (0-3 scale) twice by two observers. Peak enhancement intensity (PEI), TTP and initial area under the curve (iAUC) (Syngo.via®) were measured.
resultsFifty-two patients (35 females), median age 12.4 years (IQR 8.9-15.6 years), were included. CEUS showed almost perfect intra/interreader agreement for the degree of overall inflammation (intrareader kappa 0.90 [0.83-0.98], interreader kappa 0.85 [0.76-0.93]). Interreader PE and WiAUC agreement was excellent (ICC 0.99 [95% CI 0.99-1.00] and 0.97 [95% CI 0.95-0.98], respectively), while TTP performed moderately (ICC 0.66 [95% CI 0.40-0.80]). On CEMRI, intra/interreader agreement for overall synovial inflammation was almost perfect (intrareader kappa 0.94 [95% CI 0.88-1.00]; interreader kappa 0.92 [95% CI 0.85-1.00]). Interreader PEI and iAUC agreement was excellent (ICC 0.99 [95% CI 0.98-0.99] and 0.98 [95% CI 0.97-0.99], respectively), while TTP had good agreement (ICC 0.76 [95% CI 0.59-0.86]).
conclusionSubjective grading of synovial inflammation on a 0-3 scale demonstrated high reliability for both CEUS and CEMRI. Both methods have excellent relative reliability (ICC) for quantitative measurements; however, their absolute precision (LoA) is poor. KEY POINTS: Question Are CEUS and CEMRI reliable tools to grade the activity of knee-joint arthritis in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis? Findings Subjective grading of arthritis performed well within and between observers for both CEUS and CEMRI. Both methods provide reliable dynamic measurements; however, their precision is poor. Clinical relevance CEUS offers high-precision, real-time imaging for grading active knee-joint inflammation in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, with future potential to replace the current standard of CEMRI.
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.