↓ Skip to main content

Radiographs in screening for sacroiliitis in children: what is the value?

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Radiographs in screening for sacroiliitis in children: what is the value?
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13075-018-1642-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pamela F. Weiss, Rui Xiao, Timothy G. Brandon, David M. Biko, Walter P. Maksymowych, Robert G. Lambert, Jacob L. Jaremko, Nancy A. Chauvin

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of pelvic radiographs versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the sacroiliac joints in children with suspected sacroiliitis. This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of children with suspected or confirmed spondyloarthritis who underwent pelvic radiograph and MRI within 6 months of one another. Images were scored independently by five raters. Interrater reliability was calculated using Fleiss's kappa coefficient (κ). Test properties of radiographs for depiction of sacroiliitis were calculated using MRI global sacroiliitis impression as the reference standard. The interrater agreement for global impression was κ = 0.34 (95% CI 0.19-0.52) for radiographs and κ = 0.72 (95% CI 0.52-0.86) for MRI. Across raters, the sensitivity of radiographs ranged from 25 to 77.8% and specificity ranged from 60.8 to 92.2%. Positive and negative predictive values ranged from 25.9 to 52% and from 82.7 to 93.9%, respectively. The misclassification rate ranged from 6 to 17% for negative radiographs/positive MRI scans and from 48 to 74% for positive radiographs/negative MRI scans. When the reference standard was changed to structural lesions consistent with sacroiliitis on MRI, the misclassification rate was higher for negative radiographs/positive MRI scans (9-23%) and marginally improved for positive radiographs/negative MRI scans (33-52%). Interrater reliability of MRI was superior to radiographs for global sacroiliitis impression. Misclassification for both negative and positive radiographs was high across raters. Radiographs have limited utility in screening for sacroiliitis in children and result in a significant proportion of both false negative and positive findings versus MRI findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 3 15%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 10 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 30%
Psychology 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Unknown 11 55%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#8,478,408
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#1,696
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,808
of 339,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#57
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
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 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 339,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.