Imaging as an Outcome Measure in Gout Studies: Report from the OMERACT Gout Working Group

Objective. The gout working group at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 meeting in 2014 aimed to determine which imaging modalities show the most promise for use as measurement instruments for outcomes in studies of people with chronic gout and to identify the key foci for future rese...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Grainger, R, Dalbeth, N, Keen, H, Durcan, L, Edwards, NL, Perez-Ruiz, F, Diaz-Torne, C, Singh, JA, Khanna, D, Simon, LS, Taylor, WJ
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2015
País:España
Institución:Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau)
Repositorio:r-IIB SANT PAU. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica del Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Sant Pau
OAI Identifier:oai:iibsantpau.fundanetsuite.com:p14452
Acceso en línea:https://iibsantpau.fundanetsuite.com/Publicaciones/ProdCientif/PublicacionFrw.aspx?id=14452
https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc4966884
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:GOUT
OUTCOME MEASURES
MEDICAL IMAGING
OMERACT
Descripción
Sumario:Objective. The gout working group at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 meeting in 2014 aimed to determine which imaging modalities show the most promise for use as measurement instruments for outcomes in studies of people with chronic gout and to identify the key foci for future research about the performance of these imaging techniques with respect to the OMERACT filter 2.0. Methods. During the gout session, a systematic literature review of the data addressing imaging modalities including plain radiography (XR), conventional computed tomography (CT), dual-energy computed tomography (DECT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound (US) and the fulfillment of the OMERACT filter 2.0 was presented. Results. The working group identified 3 relevant domains for imaging in gout studies: urate deposition (tophus burden), joint inflammation, and structural joint damage. Conclusion. The working group prioritized gaps in the data and identified a research agenda.

Similares en LA Referencia