A Systematic Review of Ultrasound Imaging As a Tool for Evaluating Hemophilic Arthropathy in Children and Adults
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract PURPOSE: To semi-quantitatively assess the evidence on the value of ultrasound (US) for assessment of hemophilic arthropathy (HA) in children and adults. We sought to provide the answer to the following questions: (1) Are currently available US techniques accurate for early diagnosis of pathological findings? (2) Can treatment reduce the incidence of US-detectable findings in HA? (3) Do US scores correlate with clinical/radiological constructs in the evaluation of HA? (4) Are US findings associated with functional status of joints? METHODS: Articles were screened using MEDLINE (n= 519), EMBASE (n= 493), and the Cochrane Library (n=24) (1946-2015). Two independent reviewers assessed the reporting quality and the methodological quality of articles by using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tools respectively. 4 different US scanning protocols for assessment of hemophilic joints were compared based on scanning times and anatomical landmarks. 6 US scoring systems were also compared according to number of soft-tissue and osteochondral parameters evaluated. RESULTS: Out of 16 full-text articles, 9 diagnostic accuracy studies (417 patients with hemophilia A, B and von Willebrand's disease) were evaluated for reporting and methodological quality using STARD and QUADAS-2 assessment tools respectively. Seven studies were of moderate reporting quality and 2 of low reporting quality. When using QUADAS-2, 1 study was of high, 3 of moderate, 2 of low, and 3 of very low methodological quality. Out of 9 diagnostic accuracy studies, 1 evaluated HA in ankles, knees, elbows, and shoulders while 3 evaluated ankles, knees, and elbows and only 2 evaluated ankles and knees. 2 more studies focused solely on knees and 1 on shoulders. Six US interpretation scores were reviewed and compared. All 6 articles included synovial hypertrophy in their evaluation. 5 articles incorporated cartilage modification while only 2 articles assessed hemosiderin deposition in their evaluation. Among these 6 scores, 4 were of moderate reporting quality, 1 of low and 1 of very low reporting quality. When using QUADAS-2 however, only 1 study was of high, 1 of moderate, 2 of of low, and 2 of very low methodological quality. Four US scanning protocols were also assessed, all evaluated the joints in both prone and supine positions. 3 suggested an extended scanning procedure of up to 30 minutes per joint, while 1 proposed a more simplified procedure. Two scanning protocols evaluated knees and ankles, while one focused on elbows. Only one scanning protocol included ankles, knees, and elbows in its assessment. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence (Grade I) to recommend US as an accurate technique for early diagnosis of pathologic findings, to demonstrate that US scores correlate with clinical/radiological constructs, that treatment can reduce the incidence of US-detectable findings in HA, and to prove an association between US findings and the functional status of the joint. Further studies are required to establish standardized US scanning protocols and scoring systems and to determine US as a valuable tool for early diagnosis of hemophilic arthropathy (HA) in children and adults. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This work was funded by Novo Nordisk Health Care AG. Disclosures Abadeh: Novo Nordisk Health Care AG: Other: Funding. Blanchette:Bayer Healthcare: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Baxter Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding. Doria:Novo Nordisk Health Care AG: Other: Funding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,082 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,018 | 0,016 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».