↓ Skip to main content

A prospective evaluation of ultrasound as a diagnostic tool in acute microcrystalline arthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A prospective evaluation of ultrasound as a diagnostic tool in acute microcrystalline arthritis
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13075-015-0701-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pascal Zufferey, Roxana Valcov, Isabelle Fabreguet, Alexandre Dumusc, Patrick Omoumi, Alexander So

Abstract

The performance of ultrasound (US) in the diagnosis of acute gouty (MSU) arthritis and calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) arthritis is not yet well defined. Most studies evaluated US as the basis for diagnosing crystal arthritis in already diagnosed cases of gout and few prospective studies have been performed. One hundred nine consecutive patients who presented an acute arthritis of suspected microcrystalline arthritis were prospectively included. All underwent an US of the symptomatic joints(s) and of knees, ankles and 1(st) metatarsopalangeal (MTP) joints by a rheumatologist "blinded" to the clinical history. 92 also had standard X-rays. Crystal identification was the gold standard. Fifty-one patients had MSU, 28 CPP and 9 had both crystals by microscopic analysis. No crystals were detected in 21. One had septic arthritis. Based on US signs in the symptomatic joint, the sensitivity of US for both gout and CPP was low (60 % for both). In gout, the presence of US signs in the symptomatic joint was highly predictive of the diagnosis (PPV = 92 %). When US diagnosis was based on an examination of multiple joints, the sensitivity for both gout and CPP rose significantly but the specificity and the PPV decreased. In the absence of US signs in all the joints studied, CPP arthritis was unlikely (NPV = 87 %) particularly in patients with no previous crisis (NPV = 94 %). X-ray of the symptomatic joints was confirmed to be not useful in diagnosing gout and was equally sensitive or specific as US in CPP arthritis. Arthrocenthesis remains the key investigation for the diagnosis of microcrystalline acute arthritis. Although US can help in the diagnostic process, its diagnostic performance is only moderate. US should not be limited to the symptomatic joint. Examination of multiple joints gives a better diagnostic sensitivity but lower specificity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Unspecified 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 July 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#2,443
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,006
of 275,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#38
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 275,275 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.