| Title |
Role of dual-energy CT in the diagnosis and follow-up of gout: systematic analysis of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-017-3976-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
André Ramon, Amélie Bohm-Sigrand, Pierre Pottecher, Pascal Richette, Jean-Francis Maillefert, Herve Devilliers, Paul Ornetti |
| Abstract |
The aim of this systematic review was to determine the potential role of dual-energy CT in the diagnosis and follow-up of gout with regard to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) filter. A systematic analysis of the literature was conducted using the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases and published abstracts of international congresses, according to the criteria of the OMERACT filter: feasibility, reproducibility, validity versus laboratory (serum urate, MSU synovial fluid aspirate) and other imaging modalities for gout, and its sensitivity to change in patients on urate lowering therapy (ULT). Thirty-two articles were found representing a total of 1502 patients. The data on feasibility showed that the examination took little time and involved low levels of radiation but had current limited availability. Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility was excellent, with intra-class correlation coefficients > 0.9. Validity in comparison with polarized-light microscopy showed good sensitivity and specificity (> 80%). The diagnostic performance was better than that of radiography and conventional CT-scan and at least equivalent to that of ultrasonography. The sensitivity to change varied with effect sizes from 0.05 (low) to 1.24 (high) for decrease in the tophus volume following different ULT in gout patients. Dual-energy CT-scan is a reproducible and accurate imaging modality for the diagnosis of gout, particularly for tophaceous gout (intra- or extra-articular). It can become a second-line imaging modality of choice in cases of diagnostic doubt, such as ultrasonography. Its role remains uncertain in the follow-up of gout patients treated with ULT and needs further clarification. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 19% |
| United States | 4 | 15% |
| Ecuador | 2 | 8% |
| India | 2 | 8% |
| Ukraine | 2 | 8% |
| Singapore | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Mauritius | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 23% |
| Scientists | 4 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,837,551
of 24,625,114 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#187
of 3,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,931
of 451,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#3
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,625,114 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,367 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.