Objectives MRI scoring systems for hand osteoarthritis (HOA) are currently not available. The present work proposes the Oslo HOA MRI (OHOA-MRI) score and examines the intrareader and inter-reader reliability.
Methods Relevant HOA features were included in the initial version of the OHOA-MRI score after literature review and informal group discussions. After a training session and two calibration exercises (with three readers), features with low reliability and/or low prevalence were excluded, and feature definitions/gradings were improved. In the reliability exercise 3 readers independently evaluated MRI scans of distal interphalangeal (DIP) and proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints in 10 patients with HOA according to the final proposed score. The reading was repeated after 1 week. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), percentage exact agreement/percentage close agreement (PEA/PCA) and smallest detectable difference were calculated.
Results The final proposed OHOA-MRI score includes assessment of synovitis, flexor tenosynovitis, erosions, osteophytes (OPs), joint space narrowing (JSN) and bone marrow lesions (BMLs) on a 0–3 scale, and absence/presence of cysts, malalignment (frontal/sagittal plane), collateral ligaments (CLs) and BMLs at CL insertion sites. Inter-reader reliability was very good for synovitis, erosions, OPs, JSN, malalignment (frontal) and BMLs (ICCs ≥0.83, PCA ≥89%), and good for flexor tenosynovitis (ICC 0.64, PCA 80%) and CL presence (ICC 0.79, PEA 63%). Cysts, malalignment (sagittal) and BMLs at CL insertion sites showed high PEA (≥85%), but poor to moderate ICCs (0.00–0.59). Intrareader reliability was similar. The reliability was generally highest in PIP joints.
Conclusions The proposed OHOA-MRI score could reliably assess HOA features. However, further validation is needed.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding This study was supported by grants from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority.
Competing interests None.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Regional Ethical Committee (Norway).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.