Symposium 5

Keigo Ikeda
{"title":"Symposium 5","authors":"Keigo Ikeda","doi":"10.1142/s2661341723740140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most established imaging modality to assess autoimmune myositis (AIM), there is a need for less expensive and more accessible tools. To analyze whether there is sufficient data from published literature to demonstrate that ultrasound presents good metric properties (truth, discrimination and feasibility) in AIM, the OMERACT ultrasound group for myositis performed a systematic literature review. The inclusion criteria required original research involving adult humans, reported in English, assessing ultrasound and elastography in patients with an AIM. Conference abstracts and computer-assisted diagnostics that focused on technique and not ultrasound domains were excluded. Approximately 2670 articles were identified. 41 full-text articles were included in the final analysis. There were 551 AIM patients studied. Eighteen studies (43.9%) had a control group, of which 15 (63.3%) were healthy controls. The age of participants (including controls) varied from 18 to 86 years, and most were females (59%). Diagnosis of AIM was largely biopsy-proven, although some were derived through clinical presentation, positive clinical imaging (ultrasound or otherwise) and/or electromyography and steroid responsiveness. The features examined with ultrasound in the 41 included articles consisted of: muscle echogenicity, bulk, atrophy, architecture, power Doppler, perfusion characteristics, shear wave modulus, shear wave velocity, elasticity index and fasciculations. 12 studies (29.2%) used quantitative methods to assess these characteristics, whilst others used semi-quantitative, dichotomous/binary and descriptive scoring systems. Criterion validity was met in 14 studies (12/14, 85.7%) and construct validity in 22 studies (22/25, 88.0%). Most published articles reported Level 3b to Level 5 evidence with varying degrees of bias. There was only one longitudinal study examining discrimination. Reliability and feasibility were under-reported. This was the first systematic review studying the utility of ultrasound in AIM, which suggested some evidence for criterion and construct validity. Further validation processes are underway.","PeriodicalId":15538,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Rheumatology and Immunology","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Rheumatology and Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/s2661341723740140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most established imaging modality to assess autoimmune myositis (AIM), there is a need for less expensive and more accessible tools. To analyze whether there is sufficient data from published literature to demonstrate that ultrasound presents good metric properties (truth, discrimination and feasibility) in AIM, the OMERACT ultrasound group for myositis performed a systematic literature review. The inclusion criteria required original research involving adult humans, reported in English, assessing ultrasound and elastography in patients with an AIM. Conference abstracts and computer-assisted diagnostics that focused on technique and not ultrasound domains were excluded. Approximately 2670 articles were identified. 41 full-text articles were included in the final analysis. There were 551 AIM patients studied. Eighteen studies (43.9%) had a control group, of which 15 (63.3%) were healthy controls. The age of participants (including controls) varied from 18 to 86 years, and most were females (59%). Diagnosis of AIM was largely biopsy-proven, although some were derived through clinical presentation, positive clinical imaging (ultrasound or otherwise) and/or electromyography and steroid responsiveness. The features examined with ultrasound in the 41 included articles consisted of: muscle echogenicity, bulk, atrophy, architecture, power Doppler, perfusion characteristics, shear wave modulus, shear wave velocity, elasticity index and fasciculations. 12 studies (29.2%) used quantitative methods to assess these characteristics, whilst others used semi-quantitative, dichotomous/binary and descriptive scoring systems. Criterion validity was met in 14 studies (12/14, 85.7%) and construct validity in 22 studies (22/25, 88.0%). Most published articles reported Level 3b to Level 5 evidence with varying degrees of bias. There was only one longitudinal study examining discrimination. Reliability and feasibility were under-reported. This was the first systematic review studying the utility of ultrasound in AIM, which suggested some evidence for criterion and construct validity. Further validation processes are underway.
第 5 专题讨论会
虽然磁共振成像(MRI)是评估自身免疫性肌炎(AIM)最成熟的成像方式,但仍需要更便宜、更易用的工具。为了分析已发表的文献中是否有足够的数据证明超声波在 AIM 中具有良好的度量特性(真实性、辨别力和可行性),OMERACT 超声波肌炎小组进行了一次系统的文献综述。纳入标准要求以英语报告的涉及成人的原始研究,评估 AIM 患者的超声和弹性成像。重点关注技术而非超声领域的会议摘要和计算机辅助诊断被排除在外。共筛选出约 2670 篇文章。最终分析纳入了 41 篇全文文章。共研究了 551 名 AIM 患者。18项研究(43.9%)设有对照组,其中15项(63.3%)为健康对照组。参与者(包括对照组)的年龄从 18 岁到 86 岁不等,大多数为女性(59%)。AIM 的诊断主要由活检证实,但也有一些诊断是通过临床表现、阳性临床影像(超声或其他)和/或肌电图以及类固醇反应性得出的。在收录的 41 篇文章中,超声检查的特征包括:肌肉回声性、体积、萎缩、结构、功率多普勒、灌注特征、剪切波模量、剪切波速度、弹性指数和筋束。12 项研究(29.2%)使用定量方法评估这些特征,其他研究则使用半定量、二分法/二元法和描述性评分系统。14项研究(12/14,85.7%)符合标准有效性,22项研究(22/25,88.0%)符合构造有效性。大多数发表的文章都报告了 3b 级到 5 级的证据,存在不同程度的偏倚。只有一项纵向研究对辨别力进行了考察。可靠性和可行性报告不足。这是首次对超声波在 AIM 中的实用性进行的系统性综述,其中提出了一些标准有效性和构建有效性的证据。进一步的验证工作正在进行中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信