rss
Ann Rheum Dis 64:i8-i10 doi:10.1136/ard.2004.031807
  • Articles

The development of the EULAR–OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas

  1. P Bird1,
  2. P Conaghan2,
  3. B Ejbjerg3,
  4. F McQueen4,
  5. M Lassere5,
  6. C Peterfy6,
  7. J Edmonds7,
  8. R Shnier8,
  9. P O’Connor9,
  10. E A Haavardsholm10,
  11. P Emery11,
  12. H Genant12,
  13. M Østergaard13
  1. 1Department of Rheumatology, St George Hospital, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia
  2. 2Academic Unit of Musculoskeletal Disease, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  3. 3Departments of Rheumatology, Radiology, and MRI, Copenhagen University Hospital at Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark
  4. 4Department of Molecular Medicine and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
  5. 5Department of Rheumatology, St George Hospital, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia
  6. 6Synarc Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA
  7. 7Department of Rheumatology, St George Hospital, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia
  8. 8Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Mayne Nickless, Sydney, Australia
  9. 9Department of Radiology, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK
  10. 10Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  11. 11Academic Unit of Musculoskeletal Disease, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  12. 12Department of Radiology, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
  13. 13Departments of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospitals at Herlev and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to:
    Prof M Østergaard
    Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospital at Hvidovre, Kettegaard alle 30, DK-2650 Hvidovre, Denmark; modadlnet.dk

    Abstract

    Based on a previously developed rheumatoid arthritis MRI scoring system (OMERACT 2002 RAMRIS), the development team agreed which joints, MRI features, MRI sequences, and image planes would best illustrate the scoring system in an atlas. After collecting representative examples for all grades for each abnormality (synovitis, bone oedema, and bone erosion), the team met for a three day period to review the images and choose by consensus the most illustrative set for each feature, site, and grade. A predefined subset of images (for example, for erosion—all coronal slices through the bone) was extracted. These images were then re-read by the group at a different time point to confirm the scores originally assigned. Finally, all selected images were photographed and formatted by one centre and distributed to all readers for final approval.

    Responses to this article