RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Systematic review of imaging tests to predict the development of rheumatoid arthritis in people with unclassified arthritis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.03.16.21253692
DO 10.1101/2021.03.16.21253692
A1 P de Pablo
A1 J Dinnes
A1 S Berhane
A1 A Osman
A1 Z Lim
A1 A Coombe
A1 K Raza
A1 A Filer
A1 JJ Deeks
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/17/2021.03.16.21253692.abstract
AB Objectives To estimate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound, for the prediction of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in unclassified arthritis (UA).Methods MEDLINE, Embase and BIOSIS were searched from 1987 to May 2019. Studies evaluating any imaging test in participants with UA were eligible. Reference standards were RA classification criteria or methotrexate initiation. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed validity using QUADAS-2. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for each imaging characteristic and joint area. Summary estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated where possible.Results Nineteen studies were included; 13 evaluated MRI (n=1,143; 454 with RA) and 6 evaluated ultrasound (n=531; 205 with RA). Studies were limited by unclear recruitment procedures, inclusion of patients with RA at baseline, differential verification, lack of blinding and consensus grading. Study heterogeneity largely precluded meta-analysis, however summary sensitivity and specificity for MRI synovitis in at least one joint were 93% (95% CI 88%, 96%) and 25% (95% CI 13%, 41%) (3 studies). Specificities may be higher for other MRI characteristics but data are limited. Ultrasound results were difficult to synthesise due to different diagnostic thresholds and reference standards.Conclusions The evidence for MRI or ultrasound as single tests for predicting RA in people with UA is heterogeneous and of variable methodological quality. Larger studies using consensus grading and consistently defined RA diagnosis are needed to identify whether combinations of imaging characteristics, either alone or in combination with other clinical findings, can better predict RA in this population.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020158239.Key messagesTo date, the diagnostic accuracy of imaging tests for the earlier identification of RA has not been systematically assessed. We conducted a systematic review to estimate, and if possible compare, the accuracy of MRI and ultrasound for predicting the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis in people with unclassified arthritis.In this systematic review of 13 studies of MRI (1,143 participants) and 6 studies of ultrasound (531 participants), study quality was highly variable with considerable variation in populations, diagnostic thresholds and reference standards limiting potential for meta-analysis.Individual MRI imaging characteristics demonstrated either high sensitivity (with low specificity) or high specificity (with low sensitivity) with inconsistent results between studies. Similar heterogeneity in results was observed for ultrasound but with considerably fewer data.Imaging can identify subclinical inflammatory changes in joint areas where no synovitis is apparent, which may be useful in identifying the aetiology of symptoms. However, larger studies using consistent scoring systems for imaging interpretation and definition of RA are needed to identify the extent to which imaging findings alone can predict the development of RA. Until then, imaging should be interpreted in light of other findings.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis paper presents independent research supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham (grant reference No BRC-1215-20009). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. PdeP is supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) personal fellowship [grant reference PDF-2014-07-055]. KR, AF, JD, SB and JJD are supported by the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:N/AAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAvailable on request