Download PDFPDF

Deciding on progression of joint damage in paired films of individual patients: smallest detectable difference or change
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Determining the smallest detectable change
    • Jane S Angwin
    • Other Contributors:
      • Michael Binks, Michael F. James

    Dear Editor,

    The authors [1] are to be congratulated on demonstrating that, when readers view radiographs at 2 time-points simultaneously, they observe the relative change in JSN and/or erosions between the radiographs rather than the absolute state of the joints. Thus, they assign separate scores to the 2 radiographs to reflect this observed change, rather than scoring the 2 radiographs independently. This truth is...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.