1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Novel Ultrasound Image Acquisition Protocol and Scoring System for the Pediatric Knee

      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Ultrasound Workgroup
      Arthritis Care & Research
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Scoring ultrasound synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis: a EULAR-OMERACT ultrasound taskforce—Part 1: definition and development of a standardised, consensus-based scoring system

          Objectives To develop a consensus-based ultrasound (US) definition and quantification system for synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods A multistep, iterative approach was used to: (1) evaluate the baseline agreement on defining and scoring synovitis according to the usual practice of different sonographers, using both grey-scale (GS) (synovial hypertrophy (SH) and effusion) and power Doppler (PD), by reading static images and scanning patients with RA and (2) evaluate the influence of both the definition and acquisition technique on reliability followed by a Delphi exercise to obtain consensus definitions for synovitis, elementary components and scoring system. Results Baseline reliability was highly variable but better for static than dynamic images that were directly acquired and immediately scored. Using static images, intrareader and inter-reader reliability for scoring PD were excellent for both binary and semiquantitative (SQ) grading but GS showed greater variability for both scoring systems (κ ranges: −0.05 to 1 and 0.59 to 0.92, respectively). In patient-based exercise, both intraobserver and interobserver reliability were variable and the mean κ coefficients did not reach 0.50 for any of the components. The second step resulted in refinement of the preliminary Outcome Measures in Rheumatology synovitis definition by including the presence of both hypoechoic SH and PD signal and the development of a SQ severity score, depending on both the amount of PD and the volume and appearance of SH. Conclusion A multistep consensus-based process has produced a standardised US definition and quantification system for RA synovitis including combined and individual SH and PD components. Further evaluation is required to understand its performance before application in clinical trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Scoring ultrasound synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis: a EULAR-OMERACT ultrasound taskforce-Part 2: reliability and application to multiple joints of a standardised consensus-based scoring system

            Objectives To test the reliability of new ultrasound (US) definitions and quantification of synovial hypertrophy (SH) and power Doppler (PD) signal, separately and in combination, in a range of joints in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using the European League Against Rheumatisms–Outcomes Measures in Rheumatology (EULAR-OMERACT) combined score for PD and SH. Methods A stepwise approach was used: (1) scoring static images of metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints in a web-based exercise and subsequently when scanning patients; (2) scoring static images of wrist, proximal interphalangeal joints, knee and metatarsophalangeal joints in a web-based exercise and subsequently when scanning patients using different acquisitions (standardised vs usual practice). For reliability, kappa coefficients (κ) were used. Results Scoring MCP joints in static images showed substantial intraobserver variability but good to excellent interobserver reliability. In patients, intraobserver reliability was the same for the two acquisition methods. Interobserver reliability for SH (κ=0.87) and PD (κ=0.79) and the EULAR-OMERACT combined score (κ=0.86) were better when using a ‘standardised’ scan. For the other joints, the intraobserver reliability was excellent in static images for all scores (κ=0.8–0.97) and the interobserver reliability marginally lower. When using standardised scanning in patients, the intraobserver was good (κ=0.64 for SH and the EULAR-OMERACT combined score, 0.66 for PD) and the interobserver reliability was also good especially for PD (κ range=0.41–0.92). Conclusion The EULAR-OMERACT score demonstrated moderate-good reliability in MCP joints using a standardised scan and is equally applicable in non-MCP joints. This scoring system should underpin improved reliability and consequently the responsiveness of US in RA clinical trials.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The 2017 EULAR standardised procedures for ultrasound imaging in rheumatology.

              In 2001, the European League Against Rheumatism developed and disseminated the first guidelines for musculoskeletal (MS) ultrasound (US) in rheumatology. Fifteen years later, the dramatic expansion of new data on MSUS in the literature coupled with technological developments in US imaging has necessitated an update of these guidelines.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Arthritis Care & Research
                Arthritis Care Res
                Wiley
                2151-464X
                2151-4658
                June 12 2019
                July 2019
                June 12 2019
                July 2019
                : 71
                : 7
                : 977-985
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati Ohio
                [2 ]Emory University School of Medicine and the Children’s Hospital of Atlanta Atlanta Georgia
                [3 ]Nationwide Children’s Hospital Columbus Ohio
                [4 ]Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago Chicago Illinois
                [5 ]MetroHealth Medical Center Cleveland Ohio
                [6 ]Children’s Hospital Colorado and University of Colorado Denver
                [7 ]Cigna Chicago Illinois
                [8 ]University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada
                [9 ]Seattle Children’s Hospital Seattle Washington
                [10 ]Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children Dallas Texas
                [11 ]University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
                [12 ]University of Florida Gainesville
                [13 ]Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Ottawa Ontario Canada
                Article
                10.1002/acr.23746
                30192069
                7d749796-d9b1-485c-98ca-054e49086fcd
                © 2019

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article