Table 3

Recommendation 8: Summary of included studies comparing imaging in the detection of erosions

Comparator vs reference technique (article reference)SensitivitySpecificityAccuracyκDetection rate, mean (range)
Hand/wrist erosions:
 MRI vs CT52 83 85–870.61–0.680.92–0.960.77–0.890.630.71-fold (0.60–0.81-fold)
 Ultrasound vs CT52 830.42–0.440.91–0.950.80–0.840.44
 CR vs CT52 83 85–880.14–0.540.92–1.00.63–0.810.290.34-fold (0.16–0.60-fold)
 CR vs MRI24 26 39 58 75 89 90–1000.0–0.550.5–1.00.23–0.920.38-fold (0.06–0.80-fold)
 CR vs ultrasound24 58 97–1010.481.00.60-fold (0.18–1.21-fold)
 Ultrasound vs MRI24 58 97–1000.33–0.870.68–1.0correlation coefficient 0.68–0.9p<0.0005–<0.0010.77-fold (0.35–1.51-fold)
 Low vs high-field MRI75 76 91 950.46–0.940.93–0.940.55–0.940.94-fold (0.46–1.16-fold)
Feet erosions:
 CR vs MRI29 430.32–0.800.85–0.980.65
p 0.002
1.19-fold (0.55–1.83-fold)
 CR vs ultrasound29 1020.53-fold (0.42–0.64-fold)
 Ultrasound vs MRI290.790.970.961.3-fold
  • CR, conventional radiography.