Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Oct;74(10):1868-74.
doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-205431. Epub 2014 Jun 10.

Imaging modalities for the classification of gout: systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Alexis Ogdie  1 , William J Taylor  2 , Mark Weatherall  2 , Jaap Fransen  3 , Tim L Jansen  3 , Tuhina Neogi  4 , H Ralph Schumacher  1 , Nicola Dalbeth  5
Affiliations
Review

Imaging modalities for the classification of gout: systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Alexis Ogdie et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Although there has been major progress in gout imaging, no gout classification criteria currently include advanced imaging techniques.

Objective: To examine the usefulness of imaging modalities in the classification of gout when compared to monosodium urate (MSU) crystal confirmation as the gold standard, in order to inform development of new gout classification criteria.

Methods: We systematically reviewed the published literature concerning the diagnostic performance of plain film radiography, MRI, ultrasound (US), conventional CT and dual energy CT (DECT). Only studies with MSU crystal confirmation as the gold standard were included. When more than one study examined the same imaging feature, the data were pooled and summary test characteristics were calculated.

Results: 11 studies (9 manuscripts and 2 meeting abstracts) satisfied the inclusion criteria. All were set in secondary care, with mean gout disease duration of at least 7 years. Three features were examined in more than one study: the double contour sign (DCS) on US, tophus on US, and MSU crystal deposition on DECT. The pooled (95% CI) sensitivity and specificity of US DCS were 0.83 (0.72 to 0.91) and 0.76 (0.68 to 0.83), respectively; of US tophus, were 0.65 (0.34 to 0.87) and 0.80 (0.38 to 0.96), respectively; and of DECT, were 0.87 (0.79 to 0.93) and 0.84 (0.75 to 0.90), respectively.

Conclusions: US and DECT show promise for gout classification but the few studies to date have mostly been in patients with longstanding, established disease. The contribution of imaging over clinical features for gout classification criteria requires further examination.

Keywords: Arthritis; Gout; Ultrasonography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

COMPETING INTERESTS

None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Search results
Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched using the search strategy in the appendix. In addition, proceedings from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European Union League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) annual meetings from 2007–2012 were searched for relevant abstracts.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Methodologic quality as assessed using the QUADAS tool
The vertical access contains the individual quality metrics and the horizontal access reflects the proportion of studies meeting these criteria (in green). Yellow signifies that it was unclear whether the study met the quality metric (usually because it was reported) and red signifies that the study specifically did not meet that metric.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hierarchical summary receiver operator curves (HSROC)
Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve for a) ultrasound double contour sign, b) tophi on ultrasound, and c) DECT. The closed points represent the individual studies in the review. The open point represents the pooled sensitivity and specificity estimate and the enclosed shape represents the bivariate 95% confidence interval for the pooled sensitivity and specificity estimate.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Singh J, Solomon DH, Dougados M, et al. Classification and Response Criteria Subcommittee of the Committee on Quality Measures, American College of Rheumatology. Development of classification and response criteria for rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(3):348–52. - PubMed
    1. Dalbeth N, Fransen J, Jansen TL, et al. New classification criteria for gout: a framework for progress. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013;52(10):1748–53. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Malik A, Schumacher H, Dinnella J, Clayburne G. Clinical diagnostic criteria for gout: comparison with the gold standard of synovial fluid crystal analysis. J Clin Rheumatol. 2009;15(1):22–4. - PubMed
    1. Wallace S, Robinson H, Masi A, et al. Preliminary criteria for the classification of the acute arthritis of primary gout. Arthritis Rheum. 1977;20(3):895–900. - PubMed
    1. Girish G, Glazebrook K, Jacobson J. Advanced imaging in gout. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(3):515–25. - PubMed