MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415648259 · doi:10.1016/j.rpth.2025.103185

Point-of-care musculoskeletal ultrasound for hemophilic arthropathy: a scoping review of scanning protocols by the Imaging Expert Working Group of the International Prophylaxis Study Group

2025· article· en· W4415648259 on OpenAlexafffund
Khang Nguyen, Nihal Bakeer, Annette von Drygalski, Paul Babyn, Helen Pergantou, Amy L. Dunn, Björn Lundin, Karen Strike

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySaskatchewan Health AuthorityHamilton Health SciencesSaskatoon Medical ImagingMcMaster Children's Hospital
FundersBayer CanadaHospital for Sick ChildrenSwedish Orphan BiovitrumBioMarin PharmaceuticalNovo NordiskSanofiPfizer
KeywordsProtocol (science)Focus groupProspective cohort studyMEDLINEMusculoskeletal diseaseUltrasound

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: People with hemophilia (PwH) or von Willebrand disease (VWD) are at risk of joint bleeding, which can lead to hemophilic arthropathy. Point-of-care musculoskeletal ultrasound (POC-MSKUS) is increasingly used to detect joint bleeds, but a comprehensive compilation of available independent scanning protocols and their respective measurement properties is missing. Objectives: This study aimed to identify all existing POC-MSKUS scanning protocols and their reported measurement properties in PwH or people with VWD. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL (March 2025). Studies were included if they were peer-reviewed; published in English; used an experimental, observational, or review design; and examined POC-MSKUS for joint disease in children or adults with hemophilia A, hemophilia B, or VWD. Extracted data included scanning protocol characteristics and measurement properties such as reliability (interrater and intrarater), construct validity (convergent and known groups), criterion validity (concurrent and predictive), and responsiveness. Results: Of 926 identified studies, 134 met the inclusion criteria (3 systematic reviews, 7 experimental studies, 75 observational studies, 39 narrative reviews, and 10 studies using other acceptable designs). Thirteen POC-MSKUS scanning protocols were identified. Among the 70 studies assessing measurement properties, reliability was reported in 12 studies, construct validity in 43 studies, criterion validity in 20 studies, and responsiveness in 5 studies. Predictive validity (2 studies) and responsiveness were the least reported properties. Conclusion: Several POC-MSKUS scanning protocols exist, with predictive validity and responsiveness being the least established measurement properties. Future research should focus on prospective and experimental studies to establish these properties in POC-MSKUS protocols for PwH and people with VWD.

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)0.094
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.240
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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0940.240
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.010
Bibliometrics0.0400.040
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.377 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch and Practice in Thrombosis and HaemostasisSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207