Recommendation 8: Summary of included studies comparing imaging in the detection of erosions
| Comparator vs reference technique (article reference) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | κ | Detection rate, mean (range) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hand/wrist erosions: | |||||
| MRI vs CT52 83 85–87 | 0.61–0.68 | 0.92–0.96 | 0.77–0.89 | 0.63 | 0.71-fold (0.60–0.81-fold) |
| Ultrasound vs CT52 83 | 0.42–0.44 | 0.91–0.95 | 0.80–0.84 | 0.44 | |
| CR vs CT52 83 85–88 | 0.14–0.54 | 0.92–1.0 | 0.63–0.81 | 0.29 | 0.34-fold (0.16–0.60-fold) |
| CR vs MRI24 26 39 58 75 89 90–100 | 0.0–0.55 | 0.5–1.0 | 0.23–0.92 | 0.38-fold (0.06–0.80-fold) | |
| CR vs ultrasound24 58 97–101 | 0.48 | 1.0 | 0.60-fold (0.18–1.21-fold) | ||
| Ultrasound vs MRI24 58 97–100 | 0.33–0.87 | 0.68–1.0 | correlation coefficient 0.68–0.9 | p<0.0005–<0.001 | 0.77-fold (0.35–1.51-fold) |
| Low vs high-field MRI75 76 91 95 | 0.46–0.94 | 0.93–0.94 | 0.55–0.94 | 0.94-fold (0.46–1.16-fold) | |
| Feet erosions: | |||||
| CR vs MRI29 43 | 0.32–0.80 | 0.85–0.98 | 0.65 p 0.002 | 1.19-fold (0.55–1.83-fold) | |
| CR vs ultrasound29 102 | 0.53-fold (0.42–0.64-fold) | ||||
| Ultrasound vs MRI29 | 0.79 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 1.3-fold | |
CR, conventional radiography.