LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Sarmanova, A.; Hall, M.; Moses, J.; Doherty, M.; Zhang, W. (2016)
Publisher: W.B. Saunders For The Osteoarthritis Research Society
Journal: Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Synovial, Biomedical Engineering, Osteoarthritis, Synovitis, Rheumatology, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Meta-analysis, Article, Ultrasound

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: human activities
Objectives\ud To examine the prevalence of synovial effusion, synovial hypertrophy and positive Doppler signal (DS) detected by ultrasound (US) in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and/or knee pain compared to that in the general population.\ud \ud Method\ud A systematic literature search was undertaken in Medline, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine, PubMed Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases in May 2015. Frequencies of US abnormalities in people with knee OA/pain, in the general population or asymptomatic controls were pooled using the random effects model. Publication bias and heterogeneity between studies were examined.\ud \ud Results\ud Twenty four studies in people with knee pain/OA and five studies of the general population or asymptomatic controls met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of US effusion, synovial hypertrophy and positive DS in people with knee OA/pain were 51.5% (95% CI 40.2 to 62.8), 41.5% (26.3–57.5) and 32.7% (8.34–63.24), respectively, which were higher than those in the general population or asymptomatic controls (19.9% (95%CI 7.8–35.3%), 14.5% (0–58.81), and 15.8 (3.08–35.36), respectively). People with knee OA (ACR criteria or radiographic OA) had greater prevalence of US abnormalities than people with knee pain (P = 0.037, P = 0.010 and P = 0.009, respectively).\ud \ud Conclusions\ud US detected effusion, synovial hypertrophy and DS are more common in people with knee OA/pain, compared to the general population. These abnormalities relate more to presence of OA structural changes than to pain.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Hayashi D, Roemer FW, Katur A, Felson DT, Yang SO, Alomran F, et al. Imaging of synovitis in osteoarthritis: current status and outlook. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2011;41:116e30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2010.12.003.
    • 2. Attur M, Samuels J, Krasnokutsky S, Abramson SB. Targeting the synovial tissue for treating osteoarthritis (OA): where is the evidence? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2010;24:71e9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2009.08.011.
    • 3. Roemer FW, Guermazi A, Felson DT, Niu JB, Nevitt MC, Crema MD, et al. Presence of MRI-detected joint effusion and synovitis increases the risk of cartilage loss in knees without osteoarthritis at 30-month follow-up: the MOST study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1804e9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ ard.2011.150243.
    • 4. Atukorala I, Kwoh CK, Guermazi A, Roemer FW, Boudreau RM, Hannon MJ, et al. Synovitis in knee osteoarthritis: a precursor of disease? Ann Rheum Dis 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ annrheumdis-2014-205894.
    • 5. Conaghan PG, D'Agostino MA, Le Bars M, Baron G, Schmidely N, Wakefield R, et al. Clinical and ultrasonographic predictors of joint replacement for knee osteoarthritis: results from a large, 3-year, prospective EULAR study. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:644e7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.099564.
    • 6. Iagnocco A. Imaging the joint in osteoarthritis: a place for ultrasound? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2010;24:27e38, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2009.08.012.
    • 7. Karim Z, Wakefield RJ, Quinn M, Conaghan PG, Brown AK, Veale DJ, et al. Validation and reproducibility of ultrasonography in the detection of synovitis in the knee: a comparison with arthroscopy and clinical examination. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:387e94, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.20054.
    • 8. Ulasli AM, Yaman F, Dikici O, Karaman A, Kacar E, Demirdal US. Accuracy in detecting knee effusion with clinical examination and the effect of effusion, the patient's body mass index, and the clinician's experience. Clin Rheumatol 2014;33:1139e43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10067-013-2356-6.
    • 9. Walther M, Harms H, Krenn V, Radke S, Faehndrich TP, Gohlke F. Correlation of power Doppler sonography with vascularity of the synovial tissue of the knee joint in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2001;44:331e8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1529- 0131(200102)44. 2<331::AID-ANR50>3.0.CO;2e0.
    • 10. Labanauskaite G, Sarauskas V. Correlation of power Doppler sonography with vascularity of the synovial tissue. Med Kaunas Lith 2003;39:480e3. Lithuanian.
    • 11. Tarhan S, Unlu Z. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonographic evaluation of the patients with knee osteoarthritis: a comparative study. Clin Rheumatol 2003;22:181e8, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10067-002-0694-x.
    • 12. Aleo E, Barbieri F, Sconfienza L, Zampogna G, Garlaschi G, Cimmino MA. Ultrasound versus low-field magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatic diseases: a systematic literature review. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014;32:S91e8.
    • 13. Joshua F, Edmonds J, Lassere M. Power Doppler ultrasound in musculoskeletal disease: a systematic review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2006;36:99e108, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.semarthrit.2006.04.009.
    • 14. Koski JM. Doppler imaging and histology of the synovium. J Rheumatol 2012;39:452e3, http://dx.doi.org/10.3899/ jrheum.110814.
    • 15. Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Non-randomized Studies in Metaanalysis. Ottawa (ON): The Ottawa Hospital. Available from: http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/rtamblyn/Readings/The% 20Newcastle%20-%20Scale%20for%20assessing%20the% 20quality%20of%20nonrandomised%20studies%20in%20metaanalyses.pdf; 2007.
    • 16. Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Wells TGA. Including nonrandomized studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Higgins J, Green S Eds.: The Cochrane Collaboration 2011: chapter 13. Available from: www. cochrane-handbook.org.
    • 17. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557e60, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
    • 18. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med 2004;23:1663e82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.1752.
    • 19. Harris R, Bradburn M, Deeks J, Harbord R, Altman D, Sterne J. METAN: fixed and random effects meta-analysis. Stata J 2008;8:3e28.
    • 20. Steichen TJ. Tests for publication bias in meta-analysis. Stata Tech Bull 1998:9e15.
    • 21. Harbord RM, Harris RJ, Sterne JAC. Updated tests for smallstudy effects in meta-analyses. Stata J 2009;9:197e210.
    • 22. Nyaga VN, Arbyn M, Aerts M. Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Archives Public Health 2014;72:39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2049-3258-72-39.
    • 23. Chaimani A, Mavridis D, Salanti G. A hands-on practical tutorial on performing meta-analysis with Stata. Evid Based Ment Health 2014;17:111e6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2014-101967.
    • 24. Martino F, Angelelli G, Ettorre GC, Macarini L, Patella V, Moretti B, et al. The normal aspect of the suprapatellar bursa in echography of the knee. Radiol Med 1992;83:43e8. Italian.
    • 25. Mielke G, Brandruplukanow A, Bandilla K, Berg D, Higer P, Loch EG. Sonography of the knee-joint e normal findings and changes in rheumatoid-arthritis. Ultraschall Med 1990;11: 40e3, http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1011527. German.
    • 26. Svetlova MS, Vezikova NN. Clinical, instrumental, and laboratory characteristics of early stages of gonarthrosis. Ter Arkh 2010;82:54e8. Russian.
    • 27. Blankstein A, Ganel A, Mirovsky Y, Chechick A, Dudkiewicz I. Early diagnosis of generalized knee pain and osteoarthritis by ultrasound. Aktuelle Traumatol 2006;36:175e9.
    • 28. Malas FU, Kara M, Kaymak B, Akinci A, O€zçakar L. Ultrasonographic evaluation in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: clinical and radiological correlation. Int J Rheum Dis 2014;17:536e40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.12190.
    • 29. Zivanovic S, Rackov LP, Vucetic D, Mijuskovic Z. Arthrosonography and the biomarker cartilage oligomeric matrix protein in the detection of knee osteoarthrosis effusion. J Med Biochem 2009;28:108e15, http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10011- 009-0005-z.
    • 30. Hall M, Doherty S, Courtney P, Latief K, Zhang W, Doherty M. Synovial pathology detected on ultrasound correlates with the severity of radiographic knee osteoarthritis more than with symptoms. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014;22:1627e33, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2014.05.025.
    • 31. de Miguel Mendieta E, Cobo Ibanez T, Uson Jaeger J, Bonilla Hernan G, Martin Mola E. Clinical and ultrasonographic findings related to knee pain in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006;14:540e4, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.joca.2005.12.012.
    • 32. Wu PT, Shao CJ, Wu KC, Wu TT, Chern TC, Kuo LC, et al. Pain in patients with equal radiographic grades of osteoarthritis in both knees: the value of gray scale ultrasound. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012;20:1507e13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.joca.2012.08.021.
    • 33. Abraham AM, Pearce MS, Mann KD, Francis RM, Birrell F. Population prevalence of ultrasound features of osteoarthritis in the hand, knee and hip at age 63 years: the Newcastle thousand families birth cohort. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014;15:162, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474- 15-162.
    • 34. D'Agostino MA, Iagnocco A, Aegerter P, Kleyer A, Zwerina J, Perricone C, et al. Does subclinical inflammation contribute to impairment of function of knee joints in aged individuals? High prevalence of ultrasound inflammatory findings. Rheumatol Oxf 2015;54:1622e9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kev032.
    • 35. Schmidt WA, Schmidt H, Schicke B, Gromnica-Ihle E. Standard reference values for musculoskeletal ultrasonography. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:988e94, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ ard.2003.015081.
    • 36. Picerno V, Filippou G, Bertoldi I, Adinolfi A, Di Sabatino V, Galeazzi M, et al. Prevalence of Baker's cyst in patients with knee pain: an ultrasonographic study. Reumatismo 2013;65: 264e70.
    • 37. Artul S, Khazin F, Hakim J, Habib G. Ultrasonographic findings in a large series of patients with knee pain. J Clin Imaging Sci 2014;4:45, http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2156-7514.139735.
    • 38. Naredo E, Cabero F, Palop MJ, Collado P, Cruz A, Crespo M. Ultrasonographic findings in knee osteoarthritis: a comparative study with clinical and radiographic assessment. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005;13:568e74, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.joca.2005.02.008.
    • 39. Chan KK, Sit RW, Wu RW, Ngai AH. Clinical, radiological and ultrasonographic findings related to knee pain in osteoarthritis. PLoS One 2014;9:e92901, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0092901.
    • 40. Song IH, Althoff CE, Hermann KG, Scheel AK, Knetsch T, Burmester GR, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in monitoring the efficacy of a bradykinin receptor 2 antagonist in painful knee osteoarthritis compared with MRI. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:75e83, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ ard.2007.080382.
    • 41. Iagnocco A, Meenagh G, Riente L, Filippucci E, Delle Sedie A, Scire CA, et al. Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist XXIX. Sonographic assessment of the knee in patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2010;28:643e6.
    • 42. D'Agostino MA, Conaghan P, Le Bars M, Baron G, Grassi W, Martin-Mola E, et al. EULAR report on the use of ultrasonography in painful knee osteoarthritis. Part 1: prevalence of inflammation in osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64: 1703e9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.2005.037994.
    • 43. Filippucci E, Salaffi F, Carotti M, Grassi W. Doppler ultrasound imaging techniques for assessment of synovial inflammation. Rep Med Imaging 2013;6:83e91.
    • 44. Joshua F, Lassere M, Bruyn GA, Szkudlarek M, Naredo E, Schmidt WA, et al. Summary findings of a systematic review of the ultrasound assessment of synovitis. J Rheumatol 2007;34: 839e47.
    • 45. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for smallstudy effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 2006;25:3443e57, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/sim.2380.
    • 46. Guermazi A, Niu J, Hayashi D, Roemer FW, Englund M, Neogi T, et al. Prevalence of abnormalities in knees detected by MRI in adults without knee osteoarthritis: population based observational study (Framingham Osteoarthritis Study). BMJ 2012;345:e5339, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5339.
    • 47. Terslev L, D'Agostino MA, Brossard M, Aegerter P, Balint P, Backhaus M, et al. Which knee and probe position determines the final diagnosis of knee inflammation by ultrasound? Results from a European multicenter study. Ultraschall Med 2012;33:E173e8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1281973.
    • 48. Zivanovic S, Petrovic-Rackov L, Zivanovic A. Arthrosonography and biomarkers in the evaluation of destructive knee cartilage osteoarthrosis. Srp Arh Celok Lek 2009;137:653e8, http:// dx.doi.org/10.2298/Sarh0912653z.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    67
    67%
  • No similar publications.