These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate crystal deposition disease by ultrasonography: how many and which sites should be scanned?
    Author: Cipolletta E, Moscioni E, Sirotti S, Di Battista J, Abhishek A, Rozza D, Zanetti A, Carrara G, Scirè CA, Grassi W, Filippou G, Filippucci E.
    Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford); 2024 Aug 01; 63(8):2205-2212. PubMed ID: 37882749.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To develop the optimal US scanning protocol for the diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate crystal deposition (CPPD) disease. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, consecutive patients with a crystal-proven diagnosis of CPPD disease, and age-, sex-matched disease controls with a negative synovial fluid analysis were prospectively enrolled in two Italian Institutions. Four rheumatologists, blinded to patients' clinical details, performed US examinations using a standardized scanning protocol including 20 joints (shoulders, elbows, wrists, metacarpophalangeal joints from second to fifth fingers, hips, knees, ankles). CPPD was identified as presence/absence, according to the OMERACT definitions. Reduced US scanning protocols were developed by selecting the most informative joints to be imaged by US using the LASSO technique. Patients were randomly divided into training and validation sets. Their diagnostic accuracy was tested comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: The number of participants enrolled was 204: 102 with CPPD disease and 102 disease controls [age, mean (s.d.): 71.3 (12.0) vs 71.1 (13.5) years; female: 62.8% vs 57.8%]. The median number of joints with US evidence of CPPD was 5 [interquartile range (IQR): 4-7] and 0 (IQR: 0-1) in patients with CPPD disease and controls, respectively (P < 0.01). The detection of CPPD in ≥2 joints using a reduced scanning protocol (bilateral assessment of knees, wrists and hips) showed a sensitivity of 96.7% (95% CI: 82.8, 99.9) and a specificity of 100 (95% CI: 88.8, 100.0) for the diagnosis of CPPD disease and had good feasibility [mean (s.d.): 12.5 (5.3) min]. CONCLUSION: Bilateral US assessment of knees, wrists and hips had excellent accuracy and good feasibility for the diagnosis of CPPD disease.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]