You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Clinical and epidemiological research
Extended report
Metric properties of advanced imaging methods in osteoarthritis of the hand: a systematic review
  1. Michael S Saltzherr1,2,
  2. Ruud W Selles3,4,
  3. Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra5,
  4. Galied S R Muradin1,
  5. J Henk Coert3,
  6. Johan W van Neck3,
  7. Jolanda J Luime2
  1. 1Department of Radiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2Department of Rheumatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  3. 3Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  4. 4Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  5. 5Department of Family Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Michael S Saltzherr, Department of Radiology, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands; m.saltzherr{at}erasmusmc.nl

Abstract

Objective To assess the value of advanced imaging techniques in the detection of hand osteoarthritis (OA) and hand OA progression.

Methods PubMed/Medline and Embase were searched until April 2012 for studies on imaging of hand OA that presented quantitative data on validity, reliability or responsiveness. Articles presenting only data on conventional radiography (CR) were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) checklist for validity, the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) for reliability and the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) for responsiveness.

Results Of 627 citations, 25 studies on ultrasonography (US), MRI or scintigraphy were included. No studies on CT, positron emission tomography or single photon emission CT met our eligibility criteria. Validity was generally assessed against healthy controls, CR or clinical examination. Overall, US and MRI detected more disease than CR and found significant differences between patients and healthy controls. Scintigraphy detected fewer pathological joints than CR. Intra- and inter-reader reliability varied for US (κ=0.01–1.0) and MRI (κ=0.15–0.84 and intraclass correlation coefficient=0.21–0.99) and was good for scintigraphy (κ=0.61–0.84). There were no responsiveness studies for MRI. US responsiveness studies showed a reduction of soft-tissue changes after treatment which correlated with decrease in pain (r=0.7–0.8). For scintigraphy, scores decreased over time while CR showed progression of hand OA.

Conclusions MRI and US seem to be the most promising candidates for early detection of hand OA and for future use in clinical trials. However, further research is needed to improve scoring methods, to compare US with MRI, to confirm reliability of MRI and to further determine the responsiveness of US and MRI.

  • Hand Osteoarthritis
  • Ultrasonography
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202515

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    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.

    Background

    Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is a disabling disease, with prevalence of up to 70% among the elderly.1 ,2 Patients typically present with intermittent joint pain and stiffness,3 loss of joint mobility and loss of grip strength causing impairment in daily activities.1 ,4–6 Hand OA is characterised by degradation of articular cartilage, synovial inflammation and bone deformation. Possible treatments are limited, but new pharmacological treatments are being developed.7

    Conventional radiography (CR) is the standard imaging method for assessing structural changes in OA.8 ,9 It can display joint space narrowing (JSN), an indirect measurement of cartilage destruction and bone deformation. Although four major scoring systems are available for evaluating hand OA on CR,10–13 there is no consensus on the optimal system. These scoring systems have demonstrated good reliability,14 ,15 but low sensitivity to change within 1 year.14 CR does not show inflammation and seems unable to show the start of cartilage degradation.16 CR is therefore not optimal for identifying early OA or for monitoring disease progression for periods of <1 year.17

    Several other imaging techniques can be considered for detecting and monitoring OA-related changes, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. These include CT, ultrasonography (US), MRI and nuclear imaging methods like positron emission tomography (PET), single photon emission CT (SPECT) and scintigraphy. CT is the best method for imaging structural bony changes, but cannot depict cartilage or the joint capsule. US can visualise cartilage and other soft tissues, but the ultrasonic waves may be blocked by bony structures, hindering imaging of the whole joint. MRI visualises both bone and the soft tissues, but has a lower resolution than other imaging techniques, is time consuming and relatively expensive. Nuclear imaging methods do not visualise structural anatomy, but show metabolic activity within the joints, which can often be detected before radiographic changes.

    To assess the value of advanced imaging techniques for detection of hand OA and its progression, we performed a systematic review of the literature to assess validity, reliability and responsiveness for CT, US, MRI, PET, SPECT and scintigraphy.

    Methods

    Search strategy and selection

    The electronic databases Medline and Embase were searched for articles up to April 2012. The search terms included keywords such as ‘osteoarthritis’, ‘hand joints’ and ‘imaging techniques’ (see online supplementary text S1). No language restrictions were used. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers (MSS, JJL or RWS) to identify eligible articles. If one of the reviewers selected an abstract, the full-text article was retrieved, screened and, if eligible, selected for review. Selection disagreements were resolved by consensus. Reference lists of retrieved articles were checked for additional records.

    Papers were eligible if (1) the paper was a full-length primary paper on hand OA; (2) CT, MRI, US, PET, SPECT or scintigraphy was used to image one or multiple hand joints in patients diagnosed with, or suspected of having, hand OA or if one of these techniques was used to assess hand OA-related characteristics in healthy controls; (3) one or more of the following joints were imaged: first carpometacarpal (CMC1), scapho-trapezio-trapezoidal, metacarpophalangeal (MCP), proximal interphalangeal (PIP) or distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint; and (4) a quantification of validity, reliability or responsiveness was presented.

    Both criterion validity and construct validity studies were included. Criterion validity is determined by comparison with an optimal reference standard, which we considered to be a comparison against histology or arthroscopy. Construct validity is determined by comparison with other techniques measuring similar properties and we therefore included comparisons against other imaging techniques, clinical examination and healthy controls. Reliability studies were included if any form of inter-reader or intrareader reliability was reported. Responsiveness studies were included if they measured change and compared this change with another method.

    We excluded articles if CR was the only imaging technique used or if descriptive data only were reported, without hypothesis testing. We also excluded articles that assessed a patient group of diverse arthritides and data from patients with OA was not reported separately. The primary reviewer (MSS) extracted all the data, which included study design, patient characteristics, details of imaging technique, method of image analysis and outcome measures.

    Quality assessment

    Methodological quality was assessed using three checklists. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool with additional QUADAS items for validity,18 ,19 the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist for reliability,20 and the responsiveness checkbox of the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) for responsiveness.21 The checklists were adapted for our specific purpose (see online supplementary text S2). Questions were answered with ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘unclear’. If studies investigated multiple outcome measures, then multiple quality assessments were performed. Quality assessment was performed independently by five reviewers (MSS, SMABZ and RWS for QUADAS; MSS, JJL and JWvN for QAREL; and MSS and JJL for COSMIN). Disagreements were resolved by discussion.

    Results

    Selection of studies

    Our search identified 869 records (313 Medline and 556 Embase), including 242 duplicates (figure 1). We considered 106 relevant and retrieved them in full text. Seventy-seven articles were excluded, including three because they were not in English.22–24 Four articles25–28 reported data about the same cohort and we included the most informative article.28 Two other articles also reported data from the same study population,29 ,30 of which one was kept.29 Reference checking did not result in any additional records.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Results of systematic search and selection process.

    Study characteristics

    Twenty-five articles were included in this review:28 ,29 ,31–53 Fourteen articles on US, five on MRI, five on scintigraphy and one on both US and MRI. Abstract screening yielded two PET and one SPECT article on hand OA, which were excluded because no quantification of validity, reliability or responsiveness was presented,54 ,55 or because patients with diagnoses other than hand OA were included.56 We did not identify any CT study. The characteristics of the included studies are summarised in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Characteristics of the included studies

    The inclusion criteria varied between studies from symptomatic hand OA without abnormalities on CR or positive American College of Rheumatology criteria,62 to erosive hand OA on CR. This heterogeneity in patient populations reflects the variation in disease duration, which ranged from a few months to more than 10 years. Age and sex distributions were consistent among most studies (mean or median age of patients >55 and 61–100% being female). The scored joints ranged from a single CMC1, DIP or PIP joint to a 30-joint examination of thumb base, DIP, PIP and MCP joints of both hands. One scintigraphic study also included the radial and ulnar part of the wrist.28

    Methodological quality

    The results of the presented studies pose some limitations and should be interpreted with caution (see online supplementary text S2 for details). The optimal spectrum of patients should consist of a mix of patients who are likely to undergo imaging for diagnosis or follow-up of hand OA. However, some studies only included patients with severe OA, while others added healthy controls to the patient group. Other general limitations included insufficient description of sample size determination and lack of information about the training and experience of the examiner.

    In the validity studies, the use of only severely affected patients might have increased sensitivity, while the use of healthy volunteers as reference standard might have increased specificity or overestimated correlations.19 In the reliability studies, agreement might have been inflated in samples where results are obvious—for example, in patients with extreme disease status or healthy controls.20 Examiner blinding was insufficiently described in reliability studies. As incomplete blinding may affect reliability results,20 it should be described extensively. Responsiveness studies often lacked a priori hypotheses of the expected change, which are recommended as it is easy retrospectively to create alternative explanations for low correlations or differences between changes.21 It was also often unclear whether raters could review their prior ratings. This is important as not knowing previous results minimises expectation bias, but gives a higher measurement error.63

    Validity

    Eleven US, five MRI and three scintigraphy articles examined validity (table 2). None of the studies determined criterion validity by comparing with histology or arthroscopy. Construct validity was determined by using different comparators as healthy controls, CR, joint pain, joint swelling or MRI.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Validity of US, MRI and scintigraphy studies for hand OA

    Four of 11 US studies compared patients with hand OA with healthy controls and reported significant differences in JSN,42 osteophytes,42 synovitis,31 ,42 ,48 power Doppler (PD) signal,31 ,42 ,48 and joint effusion,31 ,37 ,48 while no significant differences were found for tendon effusion.31 Five studies compared structural US changes with CR, and US generally detected more osteophytes,41 ,46 ,51 ,52 erosions51 ,52 and JSN.41 Only one study detected fewer erosions with US (sensitivity=0.73, specificity=1.0).38 Joint pain, tender joints and swollen joints were used as comparator in four studies and agreed poorly with US greyscale measurements of synovitis, effusion, PD measurements, JSN and osteophytes.31 ,42 ,45 ,46

    One out of five MRI studies compared patients with hand OA with healthy controls, reporting significantly more ligament abnormalities, tendon abnormalities, cartilage abnormalities, joint effusion, osteophytes, bone marrow lesions (BML), erosions and cysts in patients.29 Two other studies compared MRI with CR and found that MRI detected significantly more osteophytes and erosions, while CR detected significantly more cases with malalignment.33 ,36 A fourth study investigated associations between MRI and joint pain on palpation and found the highest associations for synovitis (OR=2.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.8) and bone attrition (OR=2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1).35 One study compared US with MRI and reported moderate agreement between these modalities (k=0.41–0.55). US detected more osteophytes and effusion, while MRI detected more erosions and synovitis.53

    Three scintigraphy studies compared isotope uptake in bone with joint pain and CR. Isotope uptake was correlated with joint pain (τ=0.24),28 and OA on CR (r=0.50–0.61).32 ,50 Scintigraphy detected fewer pathological joints than CR.

    Reliability

    Eight US, four MRI and two scintigraphy studies examined reliability (table 3). Four US studies assessed inter-reader reliability. In two studies agreement was good (κ=0.83–0.99) for synovitis, PD, effusion, osteophytes and erosions,52 ,53 while in one study this varied for synovitis, PD and osteophytes (κ=0.229–0.530).40 Intrareader reliability was assessed in five studies. In four studies, intra-reader reliability assessed by one reader was moderate to good (κ=0.62–0.94) for synovitis, PD, JSN, effusion and osteophytes and good for cartilage thickness (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.96).42 ,46 ,48 ,51 The fifth study reported intrareader reliability for seven readers, ranging from poor to good (κ=0.172–1.0) for synovitis, PD and osteophytes.40

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Reliability of US, MRI and scintigraphy studies for hand OA

    Three MRI studies reported that inter-reader reliability was high for erosions, JSN, BML, malalignment and ligament absence (κ=0.76–0.84 and ICC=0.79–0.97); moderate to good for synovitis and tenosynovitis (κ=0.58 and ICC=0.48–0.51); low for cysts (ICC=0.21) and variable for osteophytes (κ=0.15 and ICC=0.88).33 ,34 ,53 MRI intra-reader reliability was assessed in two studies and was high for synovitis, osteophytes, erosions, JSN, BML, malalignment and ligaments (κ=0.71–0.84 and ICC=0.84–0.99); moderate for cysts (κ=0.66 and ICC=0.59) and variable for tenosynovitis (κ=0.30 and ICC=0.63).34 ,35

    One scintigraphy study reported high inter-reader reliability (κ=0.61–0.82),49 and one scintigraphy study reported high intrareader reliability (κ=0.84).39

    Responsiveness

    Two US and three scintigraphy studies assessed change scores over time and included a comparator. Only two of these studies assessed true responsiveness by calculating a correlation coefficient between the changes (table 4).

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Change and responsiveness of US and scintigraphy studies for hand OA

    One US study reported a significant decrease in PD and effusion in patients treated with intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections. These decreases correlated with a significant reduction of pain (r=0.7 and r=0.8).44 The other US study reported a small non-significant decrease in grey-scale synovitis and PD in patients treated with intramuscular methylprednisolone injections, while there was a significant decrease in pain.43

    In the scintigraphy studies, no interventions were used, but change during disease progression was measured. In all three studies scintigraphic studies scores decreased over time while the disease progressed and radiographic and pain scores increased.28 ,32 ,50 Changes in the radiographic scores were weakly correlated with changes in the scintigraphic scores (r=0.13).32

    Discussion

    This systematic review shows that there is growing evidence on validity, reliability and responsiveness of advanced imaging methods in hand OA. US and MRI seem the most promising candidates, with US being the most investigated modality. Few studies have compared US directly with MRI. Wittoek et al53 reported that MRI was more sensitive for synovitis and erosions, but US detected more effusion and osteophytes. This last finding, however, is in contrast with a recent publication by Mathiessen et al,64 in which osteophytes were more often detected with MRI (87% vs 75%). According to Mathiessen, the MRI might have underperformed in the study by Wittoek, as they did not use standardised scoring methods and had poor inter-reader reliability.

    US and MRI were both more sensitive for detecting osteophytes and erosions than CR, with the exception of one US study. US and MRI also showed significant differences between patients and healthy controls for structural and soft-tissue changes, including ligament abnormalities, which were only investigated with MRI, and cysts and BML, which cannot be assessed with US. Correlations between US and clinically assessed synovitis were low, as also found in hip and knee OA studies.65 Reported reliabilities were mostly moderate to good for US and MRI, although some variability was seen in the few MRI studies for synovitis, tenosynovitis, cysts and osteophytes. Responsiveness was only evaluated in US, which demonstrated that reduction of soft-tissue lesions correlated with pain decrease. More studies should therefore focus on reliability of MRI, responsiveness of US and MRI and comparison of US and MRI.

    Bone scintigraphy seems less promising for detection and follow-up of hand OA. Scintigraphy was weakly correlated with clinical symptoms and detected fewer pathological joints than CR. The reliability of scintigraphy was good, but scintigraphy scores decreased over time, while the disease progressed clinically and radiographically. This responsiveness pattern is comparable to the results from a systematic review of knee OA,66 and inherent to the technique. Scintigraphy shows increased uptake of bone tracers, representing osteophyte and cyst formation.67 As the new osteophytes become visible on imaging techniques showing structural damage, they will relieve stress on the joint and scintigraphic findings will diminish.67

    No studies on CT, PET or SPECT reported validity, reliability or responsiveness. However, these may be less optimal than with US and MRI. Although CT is more sensitive than MRI and US for detecting erosions,68–70 it does not visualise cartilage or other soft tissues. PET and SPECT use radiopharmaceutical agents that target bone and may therefore have similar limitations to those described for scintigraphy. However, this may change when cartilage-specific tracers become available.71 ,72

    A variety of scoring methods was used in the reviewed studies. These methods were often newly devised by the authors (based on rheumatoid arthritis literature), or not properly described. In both US and MRI literature only a single scoring method was used in multiple studies. The US method by Keen et al40 was used in eight articles, although mostly with additions or alterations to the original method. The MRI scoring method by Haugen et al34 has so far been used only in articles by the author's own study group and has undergone one change in subsequent studies. As seen in knee OA,73 scoring methods can improve over time and with new insights into OA. These improvements may lead to shorter scoring times, further improvement of reliability, validity and responsiveness and, hopefully, a widely accepted consensus method.

    A number of issues should be taken into account when interpreting the results of this review. Our search was extensive but we might still have missed publications. Three articles were excluded because of language difficulties,22–24 as we could not reliably determine methodological quality and extract data. We found no criterion validity studies in which histology or arthroscopy was used as a reference standard, probably because these are not easily obtained for hand OA. Not all included validity studies were primarily designed to assess validity, which might have limited their methodological quality. Comparison of construct validity studies was hindered by differences in pathology definition, statistical analysis and comparators. Homogeneity of study design and reporting should therefore be improved in future studies.

    We included data on DIP, PIP, MCP, CMC1 and scapho-trapezio-trapezoidal joints, but did not asses differences between these joints. However, anatomical differences may affect imaging performance. For example, limited resolution of MRI may hamper assessment of the smaller DIP joints,34 while US may not fully assess the third and fourth MCP joints, owing to a restricted acoustic window.74 Both MRI and US have technologically advanced in recent years and results from older studies might therefore not be comparable with those of the newer studies. This may also explain why the only study in which US was less sensitive than CR, was also the oldest study that compared the two methods.38

    In conclusion, MRI and US seem to be the most promising candidates for early detection of hand OA and for future use in clinical trials. However, further research is needed to improve scoring methods, compare US with MRI, confirm reliability of MRI and better determine responsiveness of US and MRI.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Zhang Y,
      2. Niu J,
      3. Kelly-Hayes M,
      4. et al
      . Prevalence of symptomatic hand osteoarthritis and its impact on functional status among the elderly: the Framingham study. Am J Epidemiol 2002;156:1021–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      1. Dahaghin S,
      2. Bierma-Zeinstra SM,
      3. Ginai AZ,
      4. et al
      . Prevalence and pattern of radiographic hand osteoarthritis and association with pain and disability (the Rotterdam study). Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:682–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Zhang W,
      2. Doherty M,
      3. Leeb BF,
      4. et al
      . EULAR evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis: report of a task force of ESCISIT. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:8–17.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      1. Slatkowsky-Christensen B,
      2. Mowinckel P,
      3. Loge JH,
      4. et al
      . Health-related quality of life in women with symptomatic hand osteoarthritis: a comparison with rheumatoid arthritis patients, healthy controls and normative data. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:1404–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Michon M,
      2. Maheu E,
      3. Berenbaum F
      . Assessing health-related quality of life in hand osteoarthritis: a literature review. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:921–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    6. ↵
      1. Bijsterbosch J,
      2. Watt I,
      3. Meulenbelt I,
      4. et al
      . Clinical and radiographic disease course of hand osteoarthritis and determinants of outcome after 6 years. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:68–73.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      1. Hunter DJ
      . Pharmacologic therapy for osteoarthritis–the era of disease modification. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2011;7:13–22.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Maheu E,
      2. Altman RD,
      3. Bloch DA,
      4. et al
      . Design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with osteoarthritis of the hand: recommendations from a task force of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006;14:303–22.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Haugen IK,
      2. Boyesen P
      . Imaging modalities in hand osteoarthritis–and perspectives of conventional radiography, magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. Arthritis Res Ther 2011;13:248.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Kellgren JH,
      2. Lawrence JS
      . Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957;16:494–502.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    11. ↵
      1. Kallman DA,
      2. Wigley FM,
      3. Scott WW Jr..,
      4. et al
      . New radiographic grading scales for osteoarthritis of the hand. Reliability for determining prevalence and progression. Arthritis Rheum 1989;32:1584–91.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      1. Altman RD,
      2. Gold GE
      . Atlas of individual radiographic features in osteoarthritis, revised. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007;15(Suppl A):A1–56.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Verbruggen G,
      2. Veys EM
      . Numerical scoring systems for the anatomic evolution of osteoarthritis of the finger joints. Arthritis Rheum 1996;39:308–20.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Maheu E,
      2. Cadet C,
      3. Gueneugues S,
      4. et al
      . Reproducibility and sensitivity to change of four scoring methods for the radiological assessment of osteoarthritis of the hand. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:464–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    15. ↵
      1. Bijsterbosch J,
      2. Haugen IK,
      3. Malines C,
      4. et al
      . Reliability, sensitivity to change and feasibility of three radiographic scoring methods for hand osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1465–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      1. Amin S,
      2. LaValley MP,
      3. Guermazi A,
      4. et al
      . The relationship between cartilage loss on magnetic resonance imaging and radiographic progression in men and women with knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:3152–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Conaghan PG,
      2. Hunter DJ,
      3. Maillefert JF,
      4. et al
      . Summary and recommendations of the OARSI FDA osteoarthritis Assessment of Structural Change Working Group. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011;19:606–10.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      1. Whiting P,
      2. Rutjes A,
      3. Reitsma J,
      4. et al
      . The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      Reitsma JB, Rutjes AWS, Whiting P, et al. Chapter 9: Assessing methodological quality. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Version 1.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. http://srdta.cochrane.org/.
    20. ↵
      1. Lucas NP,
      2. Macaskill P,
      3. Irwig L,
      4. et al
      . The development of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:854–61.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Mokkink L,
      2. Terwee C,
      3. Patrick D,
      4. et al
      . The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010;19:539–49.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Ammer K,
      2. Knechtsberger P,
      3. Atefie K
      . Scintigraphic control of a chondro-protective therapy in osteoarthritis of fingers. Wien Med Wochenschr 1990;140:526–30.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Konig H,
      2. Stahl H,
      3. Sieper J,
      4. et al
      . (Magnetic resonance tomography of finger polyarthritis: morphology and cartilage signals after ademetionine therapy) Magnetresonanztomographie der Fingerpolyarthrose: Morphologie und Knorpelsignalverhalten unter Ademetonintherapie. Aktuelle Radiol 1995;5:36–40.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Pavelka K,
      2. Stolfa J,
      3. Olejarova M,
      4. et al
      . Predictive importance of scintigraphy for evaluation of the progression of osteoarthritis of the joints of the hand. Ceska Revmatologie 1997;5:169–74.
      OpenUrl
    25. ↵
      1. Buckland-Wright JC,
      2. Macfarlane DG,
      3. Fogelman I,
      4. et al
      . Techetium 99m methylene diphosphonate bone scanning in osteoarthritic hands. Eur J Nucl Med 1991;18:12–16.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    26. ↵
      1. Buckland-Wright JC,
      2. Macfarlane DG,
      3. Lynch JA
      . Sensitivity of radiographic features and specificity of scintigraphic imaging in hand osteoarthritis. Rev Rhum Engl Ed 1995;62:14S–26S.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Macfarlane DG,
      2. Buckland-Wright JC,
      3. Emery P,
      4. et al
      . Comparison of clinical, radionuclide and radiographic features of osteoarthritis of the hands. Ann Rheum Dis 1991;50:623–6.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    28. ↵
      1. Macfarlane DG,
      2. Buckland-Wright JC,
      3. Lynch J,
      4. et al
      . A study of the early and late 99technetium scintigraphic images and their relationship to symptoms in osteoarthritis of the hands. Br J Rheumatol 1993;32:977–81.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      1. Tan AL,
      2. Grainger AJ,
      3. Tanner SF,
      4. et al
      . High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of hand osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:2355–65.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      1. Tan AL,
      2. Grainger AJ,
      3. Tanner SF,
      4. et al
      . A high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging study of distal interphalangeal joint arthropathy in psoriatic arthritis and osteoarthritis: are they the same? Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:1328–33.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. Arrestier S,
      2. Rosenberg C,
      3. Etchepare F,
      4. et al
      . Ultrasound features of nonstructural lesions of the proximal and distal interphalangeal joints of the hands in patients with finger osteoarthritis. Joint Bone Spine 2011;78:65–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      1. Balblanc JC,
      2. Mathieu P,
      3. Mathieu L,
      4. et al
      . Progression of digital osteoarthritis: a sequential scintigraphic and radiographic study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 1995;3:181–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. ↵
      1. Grainger AJ,
      2. Farrant JM,
      3. O'Connor PJ,
      4. et al
      . MR imaging of erosions in interphalangeal joint osteoarthritis: Is all osteoarthritis erosive? Skeletal.. Radiol 2007;36:737–45.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    34. ↵
      1. Haugen IK,
      2. Lillegraven S,
      3. Slatkowsky-Christensen B,
      4. et al
      . Hand osteoarthritis and MRI: development and first validation step of the proposed Oslo Hand Osteoarthritis MRI score. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1033–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    35. ↵
      1. Haugen IK,
      2. Boyesen P,
      3. Slatkowsky-Christensen B,
      4. et al
      . Associations between MRI-defined synovitis, bone marrow lesions and structural features and measures of pain and physical function in hand osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:899–904.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    36. ↵
      1. Haugen IK,
      2. Boyesen P,
      3. Slatkowsky-Christensen B,
      4. et al
      . Comparison of features by MRI and radiographs of the interphalangeal finger joints in patients with hand osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:345–50.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    37. ↵
      1. Iagnocco A,
      2. Coari G
      . Usefulness of high resolution US in the evaluation of effusion in osteoarthritic first carpometacarpal joint. Scand J Rheumatol 2000;29:170–3.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    38. ↵
      1. Iagnocco A,
      2. Filippucci E,
      3. Ossandon A,
      4. et al
      . High resolution ultrasonography in detection of bone erosions in patients with hand osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2005;32:2381–3.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    39. ↵
      1. Jonsson H,
      2. Eliasson GJ,
      3. Petursson E
      . Scintigraphic hand osteoarthritis (OA)—prevalence, joint distribution and association with OA at other sites. J Rheumatol 1999;26:1550–6.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    40. ↵
      1. Keen HI,
      2. Lavie F,
      3. Wakefield RJ,
      4. et al
      . The development of a preliminary ultrasonographic scoring system for features of hand osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:651–5.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    41. ↵
      1. Keen HI,
      2. Wakefield RJ,
      3. Grainger AJ,
      4. et al
      . Can ultrasonography improve on radiographic assessment in osteoarthritis of the hands? A comparison between radiographic and ultrasonographic detected pathology. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:1116–20.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    42. ↵
      1. Keen HI,
      2. Wakefield RJ,
      3. Grainger AJ,
      4. et al
      . An ultrasonographic study of osteoarthritis of the hand: Synovitis and its relationship to structural pathology and symptoms. Arthritis Care Res 2008;59:1756–63.
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      1. Keen HI,
      2. Wakefield RJ,
      3. Hensor EMA,
      4. et al
      . Response of symptoms and synovitis to intra-muscular methylprednisolone in osteoarthritis of the hand: an ultrasonographic study. Rheumatology 2010;49:1093–100.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    44. ↵
      1. Klauser AS,
      2. Faschingbauer R,
      3. Kupferthaler K,
      4. et al
      . Sonographic criteria for therapy follow-up in the course of ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid in hand osteoarthritis. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:1607–11.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Kortekaas MC,
      2. Kwok WY,
      3. Reijnierse M,
      4. et al
      . Pain in hand osteoarthritis is associated with inflammation: the value of ultrasound. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1367–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    46. ↵
      1. Kortekaas MC,
      2. Kwok WY,
      3. Reijnierse M,
      4. et al
      . Osteophytes and joint space narrowing are independently associated with pain in finger joints in hand osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1835–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    47. ↵
      1. Koutroumpas AC,
      2. Alexiou IS,
      3. Vlychou M,
      4. et al
      . Comparison between clinical and ultrasonographic assessment in patients with erosive osteoarthritis of the hands. Clin Rheumatology 2010;29:511–16.
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      1. Mancarella L,
      2. Magnani M,
      3. Addimanda O,
      4. et al
      . Ultrasound-detected synovitis with power Doppler signal is associated with severe radiographic damage and reduced cartilage thickness in hand osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010;18:1263–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    49. ↵
      1. McCarthy C,
      2. Cushnaghan J,
      3. Dieppe P
      . The predictive role of scintigraphy in radiographic osteoarthrits of the hand. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 1994;2:25–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    50. ↵
      1. Olejarova M,
      2. Kupka K,
      3. Pavelka K,
      4. et al
      . Comparison of clinical, laboratory, radiographic and scintigraphic findings in erosive and nonerosive hand osteoarthritis: Results of a two-year study. Joint Bone Spine 2000;67:107–12.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    51. ↵
      1. Vlychou M,
      2. Koutroumpas A,
      3. Malizos K,
      4. et al
      . Ultrasonographic evidence of inflammation is frequent in hands of patients with erosive osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009;17:1283–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    52. ↵
      1. Wittoek R,
      2. Carron P,
      3. Verbruggen G
      . Structural and inflammatory sonographic findings in erosive and non-erosive osteoarthritis of the interphalangeal finger joints. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:2173–6.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    53. ↵
      1. Wittoek R,
      2. Jans L,
      3. Lambrecht V,
      4. et al
      . Reliability and construct validity of ultrasonography of soft tissue and destructive changes in erosive osteoarthritis of the interphalangeal finger joints: a comparison with MRI. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:278–83.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    54. ↵
      1. Magee D,
      2. Tanner SF,
      3. Waller M,
      4. et al
      . Combining variational and model-based techniques to register PET and MR images in hand osteoarthritis. Phys Med Biol 2010;55:4755–69.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    55. ↵
      1. Ostendorf B,
      2. Mattes-Gyorgy K,
      3. Reichelt DC,
      4. et al
      . Early detection of bony alterations in rheumatoid and erosive arthritis of finger joints with high-resolution single photon emission computed tomography and differentiation between them. Skeletal Radiol 2010;39:55–61.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    56. ↵
      1. Elzinga EH,
      2. van der Laken CJ,
      3. Comans EF,
      4. et al
      . 2-Deoxy-2-(F-18)fluoro-D-glucose joint uptake on positron emission tomography images: rheumatoid arthritis versus osteoarthritis. Mol Imaging Biol 2007;9:357–60.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Szkudlarek M,
      2. Court-Payen M,
      3. Jacobsen S,
      4. et al
      . Interobserver agreement in ultrasonography of the finger and toe joints in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48:955–62.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Wakefield RJ,
      2. Gibbon WW,
      3. Conaghan PG,
      4. et al
      . The value of sonography in the detection of bone erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with conventional radiography. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43:2762–70.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Moller B,
      2. Bonel H,
      3. Rotzetter M,
      4. et al
      . Measuring finger joint cartilage by ultrasound as a promising alternative to conventional radiograph imaging. Arthritis Care Res 2009;61:435–41.
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
      1. Wakefield RJ,
      2. O'Connor PJ,
      3. Conaghan PG,
      4. et al
      . Finger tendon disease in untreated early rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:1158–64.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Ostergaard M,
      2. Peterfy C,
      3. Conaghan P,
      4. et al
      . OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Core set of MRI acquisitions, joint pathology definitions and the OMERACT RA-MRI scoring system. J Rheumatol 2003;30:1385–6.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    62. ↵
      1. Altman R,
      2. Alarcon G,
      3. Appelrouth D,
      4. et al
      . The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hand. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33:1601–10.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    63. ↵
      1. van Der Heijde D,
      2. Boonen A,
      3. Boers M,
      4. et al
      . Reading radiographs in chronological order, in pairs or as single films has important implications for the discriminative power of rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Rheumatology 1999;38:1213–0.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    64. ↵
      1. Mathiessen A,
      2. Haugen IK,
      3. Slatkowsky-Christensen B,
      4. et al
      . Ultrasonographic assessment of osteophytes in 127 patients with hand osteoarthritis: exploring reliability and associations with MRI, radiographs and clinical joint findings. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:51–6.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    65. ↵
      1. Keen HI,
      2. Wakefield RJ,
      3. Conaghan PG
      . A systematic review of ultrasonography in osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:611–19.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    66. ↵
      1. Keen HI,
      2. Mease PJ,
      3. Bingham CO III.,
      4. et al
      . Systematic review of MRI, ultrasound and scintigraphy as outcome measures for structural pathology in interventional therapeutic studies of knee arthritis: focus on responsiveness. J Rheumatol 2011;38:142–54.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    67. ↵
      1. Merrick MV
      . Investigation of joint disease. Eur J Nucl Med 1992;19:894–901.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    68. ↵
      1. Dohn UM,
      2. Ejbjerg BJ,
      3. Court-Payen M,
      4. et al
      . Are bone erosions detected by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography true erosions? A comparison with computed tomography in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints. Arthritis Res Ther 2006;8:R110.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    69. ↵
      1. Perry D,
      2. Stewart N,
      3. Benton N,
      4. et al
      . Detection of erosions in the rheumatoid hand; a comparative study of multidetector computerized tomography versus magnetic resonance scanning. J Rheumatol 2005;32:256–67.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    70. ↵
      1. Dohn UM,
      2. Ejbjerg B,
      3. Boonen A,
      4. et al
      . No overall progression and occasional repair of erosions despite persistent inflammation in adalimumab-treated rheumatoid arthritis patients: results from a longitudinal comparative MRI, ultrasonography, CT and radiography study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:252–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    71. ↵
      1. Miot-Noirault E,
      2. Vidal A,
      3. Pastoureau P,
      4. et al
      . Early detection and monitoring of cartilage alteration in the experimental meniscectomised guinea pig model of osteoarthritis by 99 mTc-NTP 15–5 scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1280–90.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    72. ↵
      1. Cachin F,
      2. Boisgard S,
      3. Vidal A,
      4. et al
      . First ex vivo study demonstrating that 99 mTc-NTP 15–5 radiotracer binds to human articular cartilage. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:2077–82.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    73. ↵
      1. Hunter DJ,
      2. Guermazi A,
      3. Lo GH,
      4. et al
      . Evolution of semi-quantitative whole joint assessment of knee OA: MOAKS (MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011;19:990–1002.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    74. ↵
      1. Weiner SM,
      2. Jurenz S,
      3. Uhl M,
      4. et al
      . Ultrasonography in the assessment of peripheral joint involvement in psoriatic arthritis : a comparison with radiography, MRI and scintigraphy. Clin Rheumatol 2008;27:983–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

      Files in this Data Supplement:

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Tore K Kvien

    • Correction notice This article has been updated since it was published Online First. The author affiliations have changed.

    • Contributors All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study, drafted or revised the manuscript and approved the final version of the article.

    • Competing Interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.