SpringerLink
Log in

Dichotomous versus semi-quantitative scoring of ultrasound joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis using novel individualized joint selection methods

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
Clinical Rheumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the study is to compare the responsiveness of two joint inflammation scoring systems (dichotomous scoring (DS) versus semi-quantitative scoring (SQS)) using novel individualized ultrasound joint selection methods and existing ultrasound joint selection methods. Responsiveness measured by the standardized response means (SRMs) using the DS and the SQS system (for both the novel and existing ultrasound joint selection methods) was derived using the baseline and the 3-month total inflammatory scores from 20 rheumatoid arthritis patients. The relative SRM gain ratios (SRM-Gains) for both scoring system (DS and SQS) comparing the novel to the existing methods were computed. Both scoring systems (DS and SQS) demonstrated substantial SRM-Gains (ranged from 3.31 to 5.67 for the DS system and ranged from 1.82 to 3.26 for the SQS system). The SRMs using the novel methods ranged from 0.94 to 1.36 for the DS system and ranged from 0.89 to 1.11 for the SQS system. The SRMs using the existing methods ranged from 0.24 to 0.32 for the DS system and ranged from 0.34 to 0.49 for the SQS system. The DS system appears to achieve high responsiveness comparable to SQS for the novel individualized ultrasound joint selection methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tan YK, Conaghan PG (2011) Imaging in rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 25:569–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dougados M, Jousse-Joulin S, Mistretta F, d'Agostino MA, Backhaus M, Bentin J et al (2010) Evaluation of several ultrasonography scoring systems for synovitis and comparison to clinical examination: results from a prospective multicentre study of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 69:828–833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mandl P, Balint PV, Brault Y, Backhaus M, D'Agostino MA, Grassi W et al (2012) Metrologic properties of ultrasound versus clinical evaluation of synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis: results of a multicenter, randomized study. Arthritis Rheum 64:1272–1282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tan YK, Allen JC Jr, Lye WK, Conaghan PG, D'Agostino MA, Chew LC et al (2016) Novel ultrasound joint selection methods using a reduced joint number demonstrate inflammatory improvement when compared to existing methods and disease activity score at 28 joints. J Rheumatol 43:34–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Backhaus M, Burmester GR, Gerber T, Grassi W, Machold KP, Swen WA et al (2001) Guidelines for musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology. Ann Rheum Dis 60:641–649

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Backhaus M, Ohrndorf S, Kellner H, Strunk J, Backhaus TM, Hartung W et al (2009) Evaluation of a novel 7-joint ultrasound score in daily rheumatologic practice: a pilot project. Arthritis Rheum 61:1194–1201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Naredo E, Rodríguez M, Campos C, Rodríguez-Heredia JM, Medina JA, Giner E et al (2008) Validity, reproducibility, and responsiveness of a twelve-joint simplified power doppler ultrasonographic assessment of joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 59:515–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27:S178–S189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Middel B, van Sonderen E (2002) Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr Care 2:e15

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Wright JG, Young NL (1997) A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 50:239–246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wakefield RJ, Freeston JE, O'Connor P, Reay N, Budgen A, Hensor EM et al (2008) The optimal assessment of the rheumatoid arthritis hindfoot: a comparative study of clinical examination, ultrasound and high field MRI. Ann Rheum Dis 67:1678–1682

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rahmani M, Chegini H, Najafizadeh SR, Azimi M, Habibollahi P, Shakiba M (2010) Detection of bone erosion in early rheumatoid arthritis: ultrasonography and conventional radiography versus non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Rheumatol 29:883–891

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank colleagues and staff from the study site for the support and help provided in this study.

This study was funded by SingHealth Duke-NUS Academic Medical Center, through the Medicine Academic Clinical Program grant: Nurturing Clinician Scientist Scheme. We would also like to acknowledge the “Estate of Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat” for the funding support (through the Khoo Clinical Scholars Pilot Award) and the National University of Singapore.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    York Kiat Tan, Li-Ching Chew & Julian Thumboo

  2. Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore

    York Kiat Tan, Li-Ching Chew & Julian Thumboo

  3. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    York Kiat Tan, Li-Ching Chew & Julian Thumboo

  4. Office of Clinical Sciences, Centre for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore

    John C. Allen Jr & Weng Kit Lye

  5. Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, & NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds, UK

    Philip G. Conaghan

Authors
  1. York Kiat Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John C. Allen Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Weng Kit Lye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philip G. Conaghan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Li-Ching Chew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Julian Thumboo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to York Kiat Tan.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

None

Ethical standard statement

This study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and all subjects provided their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study are omitted.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tan, Y.K., Allen, J.C., Lye, W.K. et al. Dichotomous versus semi-quantitative scoring of ultrasound joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis using novel individualized joint selection methods. Clin Rheumatol 36, 1137–1141 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-016-3432-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-016-3432-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation