MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Systematic Review of Ultrasound Imaging As a Tool for Evaluating Hemophilic Arthropathy in Children and Adults

2015· review· en· W2576302258 on OpenAlexaff
Aryan Abadeh, Carolina de Carvalho Ligocki, Kuan Chung Wang, Thomasin Adams-Webber, Victor S. Blanchette, Andréa S. Doria

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiological weaponCochrane LibraryMEDLINEDiagnostic accuracyQuality assessmentMedical physicsUltrasoundExternal quality assessmentRadiologyMeta-analysisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.009
Bibliometrics0.0180.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemophilia Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→