TY - JOUR
T1 - Choose wisely
T2 - Imaging for diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis
AU - Diekhoff, Torsten
AU - Eshed, Iris
AU - Radny, Felix
AU - Ziegeler, Katharina
AU - Proft, Fabian
AU - Greese, Juliane
AU - Deppe, Dominik
AU - Biesen, Robert
AU - Hermann, Kay Geert
AU - Poddubnyy, Denis
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
©
PY - 2022/2/1
Y1 - 2022/2/1
N2 - Objective To assess the diagnostic accuracy of radiography (X-ray, XR), CT and MRI of the sacroiliac joints for diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods 163 patients (89 with axSpA; 74 with degenerative conditions) underwent XR, CT and MR. Three blinded experts categorised the imaging findings into axSpA, other diseases or normal in five separate reading rounds (XR, CT, MR, XR +MR, CT +MR). The clinical diagnosis served as reference standard. Sensitivity and specificity for axSpA and inter-rater reliability were compared. Results XR showed lower sensitivity (66.3%) than MR (82.0%) and CT (76.4%) and also an inferior specificity of 67.6% vs 86.5% (MR) and 97.3% (CT). XR +MR was similar to MR alone (sensitivity 77.5 %/specificity 87.8%) while CT+MR was superior (75.3 %/97.3%). CT had the best inter-rater reliability (kappa=0.875), followed by MR (0.665) and XR (0.517). XR +MR was similar (0.662) and CT+MR (0.732) superior to MR alone. Conclusions XR had inferior diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater reliability compared with cross-sectional imaging. MR alone was similar in diagnostic performance to XR+MR. CT had the best accuracy, strengthening the importance of structural lesions for the differential diagnosis in axSpA.
AB - Objective To assess the diagnostic accuracy of radiography (X-ray, XR), CT and MRI of the sacroiliac joints for diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods 163 patients (89 with axSpA; 74 with degenerative conditions) underwent XR, CT and MR. Three blinded experts categorised the imaging findings into axSpA, other diseases or normal in five separate reading rounds (XR, CT, MR, XR +MR, CT +MR). The clinical diagnosis served as reference standard. Sensitivity and specificity for axSpA and inter-rater reliability were compared. Results XR showed lower sensitivity (66.3%) than MR (82.0%) and CT (76.4%) and also an inferior specificity of 67.6% vs 86.5% (MR) and 97.3% (CT). XR +MR was similar to MR alone (sensitivity 77.5 %/specificity 87.8%) while CT+MR was superior (75.3 %/97.3%). CT had the best inter-rater reliability (kappa=0.875), followed by MR (0.665) and XR (0.517). XR +MR was similar (0.662) and CT+MR (0.732) superior to MR alone. Conclusions XR had inferior diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater reliability compared with cross-sectional imaging. MR alone was similar in diagnostic performance to XR+MR. CT had the best accuracy, strengthening the importance of structural lesions for the differential diagnosis in axSpA.
KW - ankylosing
KW - low back pain
KW - magnetic resonance imaging
KW - spondylitis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85106989503&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220136
DO - 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220136
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 34049855
AN - SCOPUS:85106989503
SN - 0003-4967
VL - 81
SP - 237
EP - 242
JO - Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
JF - Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
IS - 2
ER -