Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow Jrheum on BlueSky
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleArticle

Reliability and Longitudinal Validity of Computer-assisted Methods for Measuring Joint Damage Progression in Subjects with Rheumatoid Arthritis

MERVYN QI WEI POH, MARISSA LASSERE, PAUL BIRD and JOHN EDMONDS
The Journal of Rheumatology January 2013, 40 (1) 23-29; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.120549
MERVYN QI WEI POH
From the St. George Clinical School, University of New South Wales (NSW), Sydney; and the Combined Rheumatology Practice, Kogarah, Australia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARISSA LASSERE
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: marissa.lassere@sesiahs.health.nsw.gov.au
PAUL BIRD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JOHN EDMONDS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. To compare the metric properties of a computer-assisted erosion segmentation volume measurement with scoring using the Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (RAMRIS) in a longitudinal cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods. Thirty-two sets of baseline and 2-year followup magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of metacarpal phalangeal 2–5 joints of patients with RA were scored using RAMRIS and segmented using OSIRIS software. The smallest detectable difference (SDD), standardized response mean (SRM), and paired t-test were used to evaluate the sensitivity to change. Eleven of the 32 patients’ MRI were segmented by both readers to evaluate interreader agreement. The 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and Sharp erosion scores further evaluated construct and longitudinal validity.

Results. Reliability of erosion progression by computer-assisted volume measurement was superior to RAMRIS [intrareader interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.97 (0.94–0.99) vs 0.52 (0.22–0.73)] and interreader ICC of volume measurement was 0.85 (0.53–0.96). Computer-assisted volume measurements identified 10 of 32 patients who progressed more than the SDD progression, whereas RAMRIS identified only 4 of 32 patients (p = 0.0013). By a paired t-test, however, all MRI measures progressed significantly over 2 years (irrespective of treatment arm) and there was little difference by SRM. Construct correlational validity of the MRI methods was 0.47–0.90 for status scores and 0.33–0.81 for progression. There was no relationship between the average DAS28 and erosion progression by any imaging method.

Conclusion. Computer-assisted measurement of erosion volume has good performance metrics. It had excellent intrareader and interreader reliability and was more sensitive to change than RAMRIS in this group of patients. www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00451971.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
  • MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
  • SENSITIVITY
  • IMAGE INTERPRETATION
  • COMPUTER ASSISTED
  • SPECIFICITY
  • REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS

Bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are common and impart important diagnostic and prognostic information. Erosion in early stages of RA is a poor prognostic sign indicating potentially aggressive disease1. The importance of early detection and sensitive measures to monitor the disease progression cannot be overemphasized. This need places demands on our current imaging and quantification techniques. Although the plain radiograph is the gold standard for bone erosions, the disadvantages of radiographs have been well documented. By contrast, MRI is more sensitive in detecting erosions in early disease, more responsive to bone erosion changes, and can visualize lesions 6 to 12 months before they appear on radiographs2,3,4,5,6. It can also provide information regarding synovitis and bone edema and offers an attractive multi-plane alternative to radiographs7.

With MRI as the preferred imaging modality, an accurate measurement tool is required for baseline and subsequent followup measurements to monitor disease progression. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials group has created a semiquantitative scoring method, the Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (RAMRIS), to provide a standardized and reproducible measurement system that can be used in a multicenter setting. Using MRI as the imaging modality, the RAMRIS system assesses disease activity and damage for both the wrist and metacarpal phalangeal (MCP) joints8. RAMRIS’s feasibility, sensitivity to detect changes, and reliability have been demonstrated9,10,11. However, scoring systems such as RAMRIS may be less likely to detect subtle disease progression compared with computer-assisted techniques that allow continuous measurements12. Further, computer-assisted radiograph measurements have been shown to be more sensitive in detecting bone erosion changes than scoring13. Previous studies on semiautomated computer-assisted volume measurement demonstrated good construct validity, excellent intrareader and interoccasion reliability, and correlated well with RAMRIS for bone erosion measurements14,15,16. Despite many studies on computer-assisted volumes measurements, there is little evidence on the comparison between RAMRIS and computer-assisted volume measurements to determine their accuracy in detecting progression of bone erosions17.

These issues prompted us to investigate whether computer-assisted measurement of bone erosion volumes in patients with RA using a semiautomated software program is more responsive to change than the current RAMRIS. In addition, we evaluated other metric properties of computer-assisted measurement of bone erosion volumes in patients with RA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects

All MRI (n = 32) on digital media were obtained from a 2-year randomized, controlled, treat-to-target versus “usual care” trial in patients with RA [the Target Study in Rheumatoid Arthritis (TASRA)]18. This trial was designed to determine whether increasing antirheumatic therapy can achieve and maintain a target of reduced joint damage progression on MRI and radiographs compared to usual care.

TASRA was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of St. George Hospital and the University of New South Wales. All subjects fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology diagnostic criteria for RA19.

MRI readers

Reader 1 (BP) is a rheumatologist with formal training in MRI. Reader 2 (MP) is a medical student with no previous training in MRI evaluation. Reader 2 undertook two 2-hour training sessions followed by a 2-hour calibration session. The training involved a review of normal MCP anatomy using models, diagrams, and MRI scans of the MCP joints; review of abnormal MCP anatomy using MRI scans; and review of erosion volume measurements using the computer-assisted technique. During the calibration session, the computer-assisted volume measurements of 8 MRI subjects of readers 1 and 2 were compared and consensus reached.

MRI measurement methods

RAMRIS was used to score the bone erosions of dominant-hand MCP joints 2–5 on hard-copy MRI films8. Each metacarpal head and phalangeal base of the MCP joints 2–5 was assessed separately. Bone erosions were scored on a scale of 0–10 depending on the volume of erosion as a proportion of the “assessed bone volume,” where 0 = no erosion, 5 = 41%–50% bone loss, and 10 = 91%–100% bone loss. The assessed bone volume was from the cortex of the articular surface to a depth of 1 cm. The scores of MCP joints 2–5 were summed. MRI scoring was performed by reader 1 only (a codeveloper of RAMRIS).

MRI erosion volume measurement

MR images from compact disks were transferred to a personal computer for the erosion volume calculations. An erosion was determined if it was seen in both axial and coronal planes and breached the bone cortex in at least 1 plane. The erosions identified were within the region of the assessed bone volume of the MCP joints 2–5. The erosion volume was calculated using the OSIRIS software (developed by the Digital Imaging Unit, Radiology Department, University Hospitals of Geneva). Every erosion was outlined manually in each T1-weighted coronal slice and the erosion area calculated by the OSIRIS software from the multiple slices. The erosion volume was derived from the multiplication of this area with the slice thickness using this standard formula: voleros=∑(Areros×ST) where ST is the slice thickness and Areros represents the erosion area (Figures 1 and 2). Erosion volumes were calculated for the second to the fifth MCP joints and the volumes were summed to provide a total erosion volume for the joints. MRI erosion volume measurement was performed by readers 1 and 2.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Coronal MRI of the fourth metacarpal phalangeal joint. Segmented area shows bone erosion on MRI slice 33.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Volume of the bone erosion for the segmentation area on MRI slices of the fourth metacarpal phalangeal joint. Circled region shows the value of the area segmented on MRI slice 33.

MRI measurements

A Signa Horizon 1.5 Tesla unit (General Electric) was used. The dominant MCP joints 2–5 were imaged. The 1 mm slice thickness MRI images were obtained with a 3-D gradient echo with the following settings: echo time 30 m/s, repetition time 12 m/s, field of view 100 mm, matrix 256 × 256, and slice thickness 1 mm.

Clinical assessments

All patients had monthly assessment of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28). Radiographs of the hands were also obtained at baseline and at 2 years and erosions on the MCP joints 2–5 were scored with the Sharp scoring method20. The data for MCP joints 2–5 erosion scores of 4 radiographs were not included in this study as they were not available for analysis.

MRI studies

Baseline and 2-year followup MRI of 1 mm thickness of 32 subjects were scored independently on 2 separate occasions using the RAMRIS system by reader 1. The MRI of 1 mm slice thickness of the same 32 subjects were measured independently on 2 separate occasions using the computer-assisted technique by reader 2. Reader 1 also measured erosion volume on a random subset of MRI from 11 subjects. All MRI images were read paired in known chronological sequence but were not read in parallel. The time taken to perform the erosion volume measurement of each image was recorded. Timing encompassed the interval from opening the image on the computer screen to completing the volume analysis.

Statistical analysis

For reproducibility/method agreement studies, the intrareader agreement of the RAMRIS erosions and computer-assisted erosion volume measurement of status and progression scores were assessed using a relative and an absolute metric. These metrics were also used to assess the interreader agreement of the computer-assisted erosion volume measurement of status and progression scores. The relative metric used a 2-way mixed repeated ANOVA intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the absolute metric used a 2-way mixed repeated ANOVA smallest detectable difference (SDD)21. The SDD is a value expressed in the same scale of measurement as the score/erosion volume11. The intra-reader SDD was calculated by multiplying the square root of the mean residual error (root MSE) of 2-way mixed ANOVA by 2.042 (using the t-distribution with 31 degrees of freedom) and √2 and interreader SDD was calculated by multiplying the root MSE of 2-way mixed ANOVA by √2 and 2.228 (using the t-distribution with 10 degrees of freedom). The intrareader of 11-patient subsets was also determined by the root MSE × √2 × 2.22811,22. We calculated the SDD percentage, which is the SDD as a percentage of the maximum score, to facilitate comparisons of the reliability of scores versus computer-assisted volumes6.

Longitudinal validity/sensitivity to change

RAMRIS erosion scores and computer-assisted erosion volumes of MRI that changed more than their respective SDD (MRI erosion progression beyond measurement error) were determined and evaluated with a 1-sample test of proportion. We also provide the standardized response mean (SRM) of each measurement technique, obtained by dividing the mean change from time1 – time0 by the SD of this change, and these SRM were compared with the SRM of the Sharp erosion score. Erosion progression over 2 years of all imaging methods (MRI and radiographs) were compared using a paired t-test. Finally, although we did not expect any imaging method to show a statistically significant erosion progression by trial arm (because this is a 32-subject subset from a 210-subject trial), we also provided those results. STATA 11 was used for data analysis.

Construct validity

Pairwise Pearson correlation coefficients of all erosion imaging methods were compared at baseline, at 2-year followup, and for progression. We also provided the correlation of the average DAS28 score over the 2-year period with each erosion progression method.

TASRA is registered on www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00451971.

RESULTS

There were 25 women and 7 men. The median age of the study subjects was 50.5 years (range 27–76 yrs) and the median disease duration was 4 years (range 0–18 yrs). The median score of the average 24-month DAS28 was 3.62 (range 1.63–5.69). The descriptive statistics (mean, range, and SD) of the RAMRIS system and volume measurement at baseline and followup are shown in Table 1. The average time to segment 1 patient’s MRI was 23.5 min (minimum 4 min, maximum 58 min). The average time to score 1 patient’s MRI using RAMRIS was 12 min.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Mean, range, and SD of scores and volume measurements (all second measurements).

Table 2A shows the intrareader ICC, SDD, and SDD as a percentage of the maximum score, or erosion volume. The ICC values for the volume measurement were excellent and the status ICC values were comparable with those obtained for RAMRIS, but the progression ICC values were better than those obtained for RAMRIS. The intrareader progression SDD expressed as a percentage of the maximum score was lower for the computer-assisted volume measurement than for RAMRIS. Both the intra-reader and interreader ICC values were excellent (Table 2B), although reader 2 volumes were on average greater than those of reader 1 (volume erosion progression mean difference 28.4; p = 0.27). The intrareader values of the 11 patients were better than the values obtained for interreader.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and smallest detectable difference (SDD) statistics of both status and progression in metacarpal phalangeal (MCP) joints 2–5. A. Intrareader studies (n = 32): (i) scoring (reader 1), and (ii) volume measurements (reader 2). B. Intrareader/interreader studies (n = 11 subject subset): (i) intrareader (reader 2) volume measurements, and (ii) interreader (readers 1 and 2) volume measurements.

The number of patients detected to have progressive joint destruction by volume measurement on 1 mm acquisition was significantly higher than the number of patients detected by RAMRIS. Computer-assisted volume measurements identified 10 out of 32 patients who progressed more than the SDD of progression, whereas scoring identified only 4 to have progressed on bone erosion changes (1-sample test of proportion; p = 0.0013). If the second readings are used, the comparison is 9 and 2, respectively, for computer-assisted volume erosions and RAMRIS (1-sample test of proportion; p < 0.001). The computer-assisted erosion volume measurement had the highest SRM of 0.63. The SRM for the RAMRIS was 0.58. The SRM for Sharp-scored radiographic erosions was 0.39. When analyzed by treatment group, there was less progression on erosion volume in the active arm (mean progression) although this difference was smaller than the SDD of progression and not statistically significant (t-test p = 0.6). There was no statistical difference using RAMRIS, although in this subset analysis there was more progression in the active arm. By a paired t-test, however, all MRI measures progressed over 2 years (irrespective of treatment arm). Erosion volume measurement mean progression was 99.1 (p = 0.001) and for RAMRIS was 1.156 (p = 0.002). Sharp radiographic erosions progressed by 0.143 (p = 0.043).

The correlations among the various erosion imaging measures are provided in Table 3. Overall, first-read correlations were higher than second-read and status measure correlations higher than progression measures. There was no relationship between the average DAS28 and erosion progression on any method (Pearson correlations −0.10 to 0.005).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Pairwise Pearson correlation coefficients of erosion imaging methods at baseline (t0), at 2-year followup (t1), and for progression over 2 years. MRI methods were read on 2 independent occasions. All sets include 32 subjects unless otherwise indicated.

DISCUSSION

Our study suggests that computer-assisted quantitative measurement of erosion volume is more sensitive to change than RAMRIS scoring in the MCP joints. Erosion volume measurement detected a significantly higher number of changes that were beyond the SDD value than did the RAMRIS system, although the SRM difference was nominal. Further, the expression of SDD as a percentage of the maximum score is lowest for the computer-assisted erosion volume measurement. Computer-assisted measurements allow continuous measurements to be taken, whereas the RAMRIS system scores the changes in discrete scales. The lack of flexibility of the RAMRIS system to register a change within a scale is the most probable reason for its decreased ability to detect subtle disease progression. The SDD is an important statistic in our study because it sets the threshold level for change beyond measurement error6. Using the paired t-test, all erosion imaging methods showed statistically significant progression over 2 years on a by-group basis.

The poor correlation between erosion progression and average DAS28 was not surprising for the MRI measures given the focal nature of MRI examination, although it was surprising for radiographs. At this stage, the relationship between bone erosions and predictors of disease activity is still controversial23,24,25. Nonetheless, these results demonstrated the difficulties of using these predictors of disease activity to provide accurate predictions of the destruction in the bones. Construct validity of erosion volume measurement was supported by the excellent correlation with RAMRIS and reasonable correlation with radiographs.

Besides having high sensitivity to detect change, a good measurement must also be reproducible and precise to be of clinical value. We used ICC, a measure of reproducibility of measurement techniques. The excellent intrareader ICC values of the erosion volume measurements were generally comparable with the ICC values of RAMRIS and results from a previous study15. The status interreader ICC from this study was better than that from other studies15,26. Our previous study showed that the interoccasion agreement for erosion volume measurement from repeated acquisitions 48 hours apart demonstrated a high level of agreement, with ICC of 0.92 to 0.9916.

The observation of quantitative measurement of bone erosion being superior to qualitative measurement was suggested in other longitudinal studies. It has been demonstrated in multispectral MRI analysis, where automated quantitative measurements were more sensitive in detecting change than visual scoring. However, the study was limited by the lack of reproducibility data of measurements used, lack of a standardized visual scoring system (e.g., RAMRIS), and grouping of bone marrow edema and bone erosions, instead of measuring bone erosion alone12. Other imaging modalities such as digital radiography also supported this notion. Although they were not longitudinal studies, computer-based volume measurements had good correlation with scoring and detected more pronounced difference between treatment groups with volume measurements in one study13,27.

Our previous study highlighted the limitations of computer-assisted segmentation using the OSIRIS program: the inability to calculate erosion volume when the erosion is seen on only 1 coronal slice, and the time required for erosion volume segmentation and estimating the preerosion border. In our early work, we found erosions that met RAMRIS scoring criteria, but their erosion volumes could not be calculated because they were seen on only 1 coronal slice26. Therefore, MRI acquisitions of 1 mm slice thickness were used in our study. Another limitation of computer-assisted volumes is the longer time required for the segmentation process. The segmentation process (23.5 min) required almost twice as much time as scoring (12 min). Clearly, if there is an advantage of computer-assisted volume measurement over scoring with respect to sensitivity to change, this time limitation may be less important. Further studies are needed.

Estimating the preerosion border was a challenge with computer-assisted segmentation. As demonstrated in a previous study using MRI slice thickness of 3 mm, readers were able to agree on abnormal bones, but not on the preerosion bone border26. The improvement in the interreader agreement in our study may be attributed to the thinner MRI slice thickness used. As the readers scrolled through the 1 mm slice thickness, the gradual recession of the normal concave bone border (in coronal plane) into the eroded borders was better appreciated, thereby achieving a better interreader agreement. More advanced computerized methods may assist with the estimation of preerosion borders in the future.

While the results of our study are limited to MCP joints 2–5, it will be applicable to both the proximal interphalangeal joints and distal interphalangeal joints, because the anatomy of these joints is largely similar28. However, results may not apply to wrist joints, which are also commonly evaluated in RA studies and are anatomically more complicated26,29.

A possible confounding factor was the decision to read the MRI images in paired chronological sequence but not in parallel. Conventional radiographs yielded greatest signal-to-noise ratio with paired, parallel, and chronological readings. However, it was unclear whether the higher signal indicated real changes9,30. Since its application in MRI remains to be validated, our approach was adopted to attempt to increase our sensitivity to detect change, yet subjecting both measuring methods (scoring and segmentation) to the same noise. While different viewing modalities used for scoring and segmenting may be another potential confounder, studies comparing film and digital techniques showed good agreement, with no significant statistical differences between them31,32.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare quantitative measurement of MRI erosion volume with semiquantitative RAMRIS in a longitudinal setting. The encouraging results could lead to the use of quantitative measurements in assessing bone erosion changes in patients with RA. Quantitative measurements may also be extended to bone marrow edema measurement in future studies, given the close relationship bone marrow edema shares with bone erosions17. While computer-assisted segmentation may be time-consuming, recent developments in automated and semiautomated quantitative measurement will negate this issue. Promising semiautomated and automated segmentation measurements are being developed33. However, until the ideal, systematically tested, quantitative measurement is available, current manual segmentation of bone erosion should suffice as an acceptable measuring tool for detecting erosion changes34,35.

Footnotes

  • The original Target Study in Rheumatoid Arthritis (TASRA) was supported by a research grant from Sanofi-Aventis Australia.

  • Accepted for publication September 5, 2012.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Farrant JM,
    2. Grainger AJ,
    3. O’Connor PJ
    . Advanced imaging in rheumatoid arthritis: Part 2: erosions. Skeletal Radiol 2007;36:381–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Lindegaard H,
    2. Vallo J,
    3. Horslev-Petersen K,
    4. Junker P,
    5. Ostergaard M
    . Low field dedicated magnetic resonance imaging in untreated rheumatoid arthritis of recent onset. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60:770–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Klarlund M,
    2. Ostergaard M,
    3. Jensen KE,
    4. Madsen JL,
    5. Skjodt H,
    6. Lorenzen I
    . Magnetic resonance imaging, radiography, and scintigraphy of the finger joints: one year follow up of patients with early arthritis. The TIRA Group. Ann Rheum Dis 2000;59:521–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. McQueen FM,
    2. Stewart N,
    3. Crabbe J,
    4. Robinson E,
    5. Yeoman S,
    6. Tan PL,
    7. et al.
    Magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist in early rheumatoid arthritis reveals a high prevalence of erosions at four months after symptom onset. Ann Rheum Dis 1998;57:350–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. McQueen FM,
    2. Benton N,
    3. Crabbe J,
    4. Robinson E,
    5. Yeoman S,
    6. McLean L,
    7. et al.
    What is the fate of erosions in early rheumatoid arthritis? Tracking individual lesions using x rays and magnetic resonance imaging over the first two years of disease. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60:859–68.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Ejbjerg BJ,
    2. Vestergaard A,
    3. Jacobsen S,
    4. Thomsen HS,
    5. Ostergaard M
    . The smallest detectable difference and sensitivity to change of magnetic resonance imaging and radiographic scoring of structural joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis finger, wrist, and toe joints: A comparison of the OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score applied to different joint combinations and the Sharp/van der Heijde radiographic score. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:2300–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ashikyan O,
    2. Tehranzadeh J
    . The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the early diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2007;18:169–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. McQueen F,
    2. Lassere M,
    3. Edmonds J,
    4. Conaghan P,
    5. Peterfy C,
    6. Bird P,
    7. et al.
    OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Summary of OMERACT 6 MR imaging module. J Rheumatol 2003;30:1387–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Haavardsholm EA,
    2. Ostergaard M,
    3. Ejbjerg BJ,
    4. Kvan NP,
    5. Uhlig TA,
    6. Lilleas FG,
    7. et al.
    Reliability and sensitivity to change of the OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score in a multireader, longitudinal setting. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:3860–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Conaghan P,
    2. Lassere M,
    3. Ostergaard M,
    4. Peterfy C,
    5. McQueen F,
    6. O’Connor P,
    7. et al.
    OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Exercise 4: An international multicenter longitudinal study using the RA-MRI Score. J Rheumatol 2003;30:1376–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Lassere M,
    2. McQueen F,
    3. Ostergaard M,
    4. Conaghan P,
    5. Shnier R,
    6. Peterfy C,
    7. et al.
    OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Exercise 3: An international multicenter reliability study using the RA-MRI Score. J Rheumatol 2003;30:1366–75.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Ostrowitzki S,
    2. Redei J,
    3. Lynch JA,
    4. Carano RA,
    5. Zaim S,
    6. Miaux Y,
    7. et al.
    Use of multispectral magnetic resonance imaging analysis to quantify erosive changes in the hands of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Short-term and long-term longitudinal studies. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:716–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Langs G,
    2. Peloschek P,
    3. Bischof H,
    4. Kainberger F
    . Automatic quantification of joint space narrowing and erosions in rheumatoid arthritis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2009;28:151–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Dohn UM,
    2. Ejbjerg BJ,
    3. Hasselquist M,
    4. Narvestad E,
    5. Court-Payen M,
    6. Szkudlarek M,
    7. et al.
    Rheumatoid arthritis bone erosion volumes on CT and MRI: reliability and correlations with erosion scores on CT, MRI and radiography. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:1388–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Bird P,
    2. Ejbjerg B,
    3. McQueen F,
    4. Ostergaard M,
    5. Lassere M,
    6. Edmonds J
    . OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Exercise 5: An international multicenter reliability study using computerized MRI erosion volume measurements. J Rheumatol 2003;30:1380–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Bird P,
    2. Lassere M,
    3. Shnier R,
    4. Edmonds J
    . Computerized measurement of magnetic resonance imaging erosion volumes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A comparison with existing magnetic resonance imaging scoring systems and standard clinical outcome measures. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48:614–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Hodgson RJ,
    2. O’Connor P,
    3. Moots R
    . MRI of rheumatoid arthritis image quantitation for the assessment of disease activity, progression and response to therapy. Rheumatology 2008;47:13–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Edmonds J,
    2. Lassere M,
    3. Sharp JT,
    4. Bird P,
    5. Carlton K
    . Objectives study in RA (OSRA): A RCT defining the best clinical target control in RA [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56:s818–19.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Arnett FC,
    2. Edworthy SM,
    3. Bloch DA,
    4. McShane DJ,
    5. Fries JF,
    6. Cooper NS,
    7. et al.
    The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988;31:315–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Sharp JT,
    2. Lidsky MD,
    3. Collins LC,
    4. Moreland J
    . Methods of scoring the progression of radiologic changes in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1971;14:706–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Lassere MND,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Johnson KR,
    4. Boers M,
    5. Edmonds J
    . Reliability of measures of disease activity and disease damage in rheumatoid arthritis: Implications for smallest detectable difference, minimal clinically important difference, and analysis of treatment effects in randomized controlled trials. J Rheumatol 2001;28:892–903.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. McQueen F,
    2. Lassere M,
    3. Duer-Jensen A,
    4. Wiell C,
    5. Conaghan PG,
    6. Gandjbakhch F,
    7. et al.
    Testing an OMERACT MRI scoring system for peripheral psoriatic arthritis in cross-sectional and longitudinal settings. J Rheumatol 2009;36:1811–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Palosaari K,
    2. Vuotila J,
    3. Takalo R,
    4. Jartti A,
    5. Niemela R,
    6. Haapea M,
    7. et al.
    Contrast-enhanced dynamic and static MRI correlates with quantitative 99Tcm-labelled nanocolloid scintigraphy. Study of early rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatology 2004;43:1364–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Mottonen TT
    . Prediction of erosiveness and rate of development of new erosions in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1988;47:648–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. McQueen FM,
    2. Stewart N,
    3. Crabbe J,
    4. Robinson E,
    5. Yeoman S,
    6. Tan PL,
    7. et al.
    Magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist in early rheumatoid arthritis reveals progression of erosions despite clinical improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 1999;58:156–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Bird P,
    2. Joshua F,
    3. Lassere M,
    4. Shnier R,
    5. Edmonds J
    . Training and calibration improve inter-reader reliability of joint damage assessment using magnetic resonance image scoring and computerized erosion volume measurement. J Rheumatol 2005;32:1452–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Sharp JT,
    2. Gardner JC,
    3. Bennett EM
    . Computer-based methods for measuring joint space and estimating erosion volume in the finger and wrist joints of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43:1378–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Clavero JA,
    2. Alomar X,
    3. Monill JM,
    4. Esplugas M,
    5. Golano P,
    6. Mendoza M,
    7. et al.
    MR imaging of ligament and tendon injuries of the fingers. Radiographics 2002;22:237–56.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Prendergast N,
    2. Rauschning W
    . Normal anatomy of the hand and wrist. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1995;3:197–212.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. van der Heijde D,
    2. Boonen A,
    3. Boers M,
    4. Kostense P,
    5. van der Linden S
    . Reading radiographs in chronological order, in pairs or as single films has important implications for the discriminative power of rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Rheumatology 1999;38:1213–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. van der Jagt EJ,
    2. Hofman S,
    3. Kraft BM,
    4. Van Leeuwen MA
    . Can we see enough? A comparative study of film-screen vs digital radiographs in small lesions in rheumatoid arthritis. Eur Radiol 2000;10:304–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Brown JJ,
    2. Malchow SC,
    3. Totty WG,
    4. Wilson AJ,
    5. Lee JKT,
    6. Vannier MW,
    7. et al.
    MR examination of the knee: Interpretation with multiscreen digital workstation vs. hardcopy format. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991;157:81–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Emond PD,
    2. Inglis D,
    3. Choi A,
    4. Tricta J,
    5. Adachi JD,
    6. Gordan CL
    . Volume measurement of bone erosions in magnetic resonance images of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Magn Reson Med 2012;67:814–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Lassere MND,
    2. Bird P
    . Measurement of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity and damage using magnetic resonance imaging. Truth and discrimination: Does MRI make the grade? J Rheumatol 2001;28:1151–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Lassere MN
    . A users guide to measurement in medicine. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006;14 Suppl 1:10–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 40, Issue 1
1 Jan 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reliability and Longitudinal Validity of Computer-assisted Methods for Measuring Joint Damage Progression in Subjects with Rheumatoid Arthritis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Reliability and Longitudinal Validity of Computer-assisted Methods for Measuring Joint Damage Progression in Subjects with Rheumatoid Arthritis
MERVYN QI WEI POH, MARISSA LASSERE, PAUL BIRD, JOHN EDMONDS
The Journal of Rheumatology Jan 2013, 40 (1) 23-29; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.120549

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Reliability and Longitudinal Validity of Computer-assisted Methods for Measuring Joint Damage Progression in Subjects with Rheumatoid Arthritis
MERVYN QI WEI POH, MARISSA LASSERE, PAUL BIRD, JOHN EDMONDS
The Journal of Rheumatology Jan 2013, 40 (1) 23-29; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.120549
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo  logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  •  logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Keywords

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
SENSITIVITY
IMAGE INTERPRETATION
COMPUTER ASSISTED
SPECIFICITY
REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Use of Metagenomic Microbial Plasma Cell-Free DNA Next-Generation Sequencing Assay in Outpatient Rheumatology Practice
  • Antinuclear Antibody Multiplex Utilization Across a Large Federal Hospital System: An Investigation of Ordering Practices and Rheumatologic Outcomes
  • Canadian Rheumatology Association Annual Scientific Meeting TELUS Convention Centre Calgary, Alberta, Canada February 26–March 1, 2025
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • rheumatoid arthritis
  • magnetic resonance imaging
  • SENSITIVITY
  • IMAGE INTERPRETATION
  • COMPUTER ASSISTED
  • SPECIFICITY
  • reproducibility of results

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2025 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire