Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • 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
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • 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 Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleOMERACT 12 — International Consensus Conference on Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, Budapest, Hungary, May 7–11, 2014

Imaging as an Outcome Measure in Gout Studies: Report from the OMERACT Gout Working Group

Rebecca Grainger, Nicola Dalbeth, Helen Keen, Laura Durcan, N. Lawrence Edwards, Fernando Perez-Ruiz, Cesar Diaz-Torne, Jasvinder A. Singh, Dinesh Khanna, Lee S. Simon and William J. Taylor
The Journal of Rheumatology December 2015, 42 (12) 2460-2464; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.141164
Rebecca Grainger
From the Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington; Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, New Zealand; Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland; School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA; Rheumatology Division, Hospital Universitario Cruces and BioCruces Health Research Institute, Vizcaya; Division of Rheumatology, Hospital de la Santa Creu I Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; SDG LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicola Dalbeth
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helen Keen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura Durcan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
N. Lawrence Edwards
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fernando Perez-Ruiz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cesar Diaz-Torne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jasvinder A. Singh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dinesh Khanna
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lee S. Simon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William J. Taylor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: william.taylor@otago.ac.nz
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. The gout working group at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 meeting in 2014 aimed to determine which imaging modalities show the most promise for use as measurement instruments for outcomes in studies of people with chronic gout and to identify the key foci for future research about the performance of these imaging techniques with respect to the OMERACT filter 2.0.

Methods. During the gout session, a systematic literature review of the data addressing imaging modalities including plain radiography (XR), conventional computed tomography (CT), dual-energy computed tomography (DECT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound (US) and the fulfillment of the OMERACT filter 2.0 was presented.

Results. The working group identified 3 relevant domains for imaging in gout studies: urate deposition (tophus burden), joint inflammation, and structural joint damage.

Conclusion. The working group prioritized gaps in the data and identified a research agenda.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • GOUT
  • OUTCOME MEASURES
  • MEDICAL IMAGING
  • OMERACT

Gout is the most common form of inflammatory arthritis and is caused by deposition of monosodium urate (MSU) crystals in and around joints, which provokes an intense inflammatory response1. Gout manifests as episodes of intense joint pain, swelling, and functional disability that may lead to persistent joint symptoms and structural joint damage2. At Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) meetings, joint damage imaging has been endorsed as a discretionary domain for outcome measurement in chronic gout studies3. However, no specific imaging instruments have been endorsed by OMERACT for use in gout studies. In the last decade there have been major advances in imaging in gout and so it was appropriate that the OMERACT gout working group focused on imaging modalities as outcome measures for use in chronic gout studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

At the meeting of the gout working group, a systematic literature review (SLR) was presented on the extent to which imaging modalities fulfill the OMERACT filter 2.0 for chronic gout studies. Briefly, a systematic search strategy was performed in electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, OVID) to evaluate plain radiography (XR), conventional computed tomography (CT), dual-energy computed tomography (DECT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound (US) for chronic gout. Bone scan and positron emission tomography were not considered because the working group decided that these techniques would be too infrequently used in patients with gout, or are difficult to access for outcomes research. The full results of the SLR will be published separately.

Discussion in the working group was focused to consider (1) features of gout that should be recorded using imaging, (2) best methods of measuring these features, (3) joints that should be imaged, and (4) the research agenda to ultimately achieve OMERACT endorsement for imaging as an outcome measure for chronic gout studies.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 74 articles that addressed how imaging modalities in chronic gout addressed aspects of the OMERACT filter 2.0 (XR n = 15, CT n = 10, DECT n = 18, MRI n = 16, and US n = 29). Some articles addressed more than 1 modality. The data are summarized in Table 1 but were presented in detail during the working group meeting. Imaging modalities were all classed within the “Pathophysiology” component of Filter 2.0.

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

Summary of data from systematic literature review addressing fulfillment of the OMERACT filter by imaging modalities in chronic gout.

During the gout working group, 3 key aspects of chronic gout for which an imaging modality could be relevant were identified, along with the previously identified domain to which they map (in parentheses): urate deposition (tophus burden), inflammation (joint inflammation), and structural damage (joint damage imaging).

Urate Deposition

MSU crystal deposition is the central pathogenic cause of gout. The usual primary outcome for interventional studies of patients with chronic gout is change in serum urate over time4, with urate deposition being as yet an unmeasured outcome. US, MRI, and CT can all identify nodular masses in subcutaneous tissue, joints, and tendons that have appearances recognizable as tophi. In US, for example, masses identified as tophi are usually hyperechoic with a heterogenous appearance, which may be calcified. These are often grouped together, have a poorly defined border, and may show postacoustic shadowing5. This appearance reflects the histological composition of tophi, which is of MSU crystals together with fibrovascular tissue and inflammatory cells6. DECT, in contrast, specifically identifies the MSU crystal component of the tophus. Plain film cannot directly identify tophi, but their presence is suggested by erosions or soft tissue opacities attributed to tophi. Thus US, MRI, CT, and DECT can potentially be used for measurement of urate deposition. US, MRI, and DECT all fulfill the truth components of the OMERACT filter, including the important direct confirmation of MSU crystals from structures identified as tophi on imaging7,8,9,10,11. These modalities also largely fulfill the discrimination components of the filter, although more data on sensitivity-to-change data are required for DECT and are lacking for MRI. High interreader reliability has been demonstrated for US across numerous anatomical locations.

Measurement of whole body urate deposition, by any modality, is not a feasible option in clinical studies. An alternative is quantification of tophus burden (as a surrogate for MSU crystal deposition), which could be measured in a single, representative area (joints and/or soft tissue) or a predetermined set of joints. US assessment of intraarticular and periarticular tophi has been demonstrated to have good intrareader and interreader reliability and sensitivity to change with successful urate-lowering over 12 months, discriminating between responders and nonresponders to urate-lowering therapies8. Therefore, US has the potential to quantify tophi in superficial areas and include both joints and relevant periarticular and subcutaneous locations; its setup costs are low, although operator cost and patient time are significant. MRI has the potential for repeat assessments, but access to facilities, high cost, and demands on patient time are significant barriers. In contrast, DECT provides a direct measure of MSU deposition. However, the issue of where to measure remains unclear because repeated imaging of multiple locations probably carries unacceptable radiation exposure for the clinical trial setting, and there may be limited access to DECT in many research centers. Overall, US and DECT appear to have most potential for measurement of urate burden. It is uncertain how the host tissue response and MSU crystal components of tophi interrelate and whether these components all respond similarly to ULT in most patients and at most locations, which may influence the use of US. Advantageously, DECT directly measures urate crystal deposition, but the ability to measure change over time in response to treatment has not yet been demonstrated.

US is also able to identify small amounts of MSU deposited on articular cartilage in the form of the double contour sign (DCS). This appearance can also be observed in individuals with asymptomatic hyperuricemia5. Some observers have reported that the DCS resolves with successful ULT12; however, this requires further systematic assessment. It is relevant to remember that the domain initially identified was tophus burden, which may be a different concept for this low level of MSU deposition.

Some key areas identified for future research on use of US and DECT in determining urate burden were responsiveness to ULT (in particular, detection of between-group differences in a randomized controlled trial setting), areas for assessment (a single joint vs a set and whether to include soft tissue tophi or a target tophus), and development of scoring systems to quantitate urate burden. The DCS may be most relevant in patient groups with less advanced gout, where large tophaceous deposits may not be present. Assessment of patient acceptability must also be addressed in future studies that aim to develop imaging modalities for use in clinical trials, especially where measurement of multiple sites is used.

Inflammation

Intermittent attacks of acute gout occur in intercritical and chronic gout; however, the periods between attacks appear to be characterized by ongoing inflammation as evidenced by hyperactive inflammatory cells, elevated systemic inflammatory proteins, and imaging evidence of inflammation1,2,3,13,14,15,16. This is identified in the discretionary domain of joint inflammation, for which no clinician-assessed outcome tools have been validated for chronic gout studies. Identification of inflammation using imaging is possible with US and MRI. MRI studies in patients with tophaceous gout have reported joint effusions, synovitis, tenosynovitis, and tophus with surrounding soft tissue or mild bone marrow edema (BME) and synovial enhancement after contrast4,5,16,17,18,19,20. MRI synovitis and BME have face validity as indicators of joint inflammation although construct validity data (MSU crystal identification and histological or biochemical evidence of local inflammation) are lacking, as are data to address discrimination. US can potentially identify evidence of inflammation in gout that includes joint effusion, synovial hypertrophy, power Doppler signal, and soft tissue edema. US-demonstrated synovitis has face validity for inflammation, yet it lacks construct validity data and discrimination data. When the 2 modalities are directly compared, MRI appears more sensitive but less specific than US for findings, suggesting inflammation6,16. This is especially important when considering the patients in chronic gout studies, who could range from patients with intercritical gout with no clinical inflammation between attacks, through to those with high tophi load and chronic indolent inflammation. Data systematically quantifying degree of imaging-identified inflammation in these differing stages of gout are not yet available, but such findings will be important in informing potential sites for assessment and sensitivity to change over time or with ULT, and these issues are import foci for future research.

Structural Damage

Chronic gout features typical radiographic changes of articular damage5,8,12,21,22, which are caused by tophi23. Most common findings on plain film are bone erosions, new bone formation, and joint space narrowing (JSN). These features are also identified by CT, DECT, and MRI, with US identifying only erosions and cartilage damage. A scoring system for XR based on the Sharp-van der Heijde method for rheumatoid arthritis shows excellent interobserver and intraobserver reliability and high correlation with expert opinion on the extent of joint damage. Extent of joint damage required only erosions and JSN to be scored. However, the rate of change in radiographic scores and the responsiveness of radiographic scores to therapy are largely unknown24. Erosion and cartilage damage assessment have intuitive face validity for XR, CT, DECT, MRI, and US; however, other aspects of the truth criterion are only partially fulfilled for erosions and cartilage damage for DECT, CT, and MRI while discrimination data, particularly for sensitivity to change, requires further data across all modalities. Because the concept of resolution or retardation of structural damage is analogous to “disease-modification,” it would seem that addressing these gaps in current knowledge, particularly sensitivity to change, is critical in developing imaging measurements of structural damage. Engaging with industry to ensure imaging modalities are included in the protocol of future interventional studies was considered a high priority, along with longitudinal observation data in gout cohorts.

Conclusion

The working group attendees concluded that multiple imaging modalities need to be further developed for use as outcome measures in chronic gout because different modalities have relevance and potential for different domains. The prioritization of modalities with the most potential for each of the relevant domains and the key considerations for research agenda are summarized in Figure 1. More than 1 modality may need to be developed for each domain, to give flexibility in design of clinical trials, depending on the underlying research question. Inflammation in chronic gout has been underappreciated, and future therapeutic agents may have dual targets of urate lowering and control of inflammation, requiring more than 1 imaging modality to accurately assess changes in these domains. Further, the study population has a critical influence on the choice of imaging modality for an outcome measure. XR changes of chronic gout occur late, but US evidence of structural damage is identified earlier. Ideally, imaging outcome instruments will need to have similar performance characteristics at different stages of disease.

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

Gout working group prioritization of imaging modalities with most potential for development in each of the 3 relevant domains (highest priority indicated as unshaded, possible modalities indicated in grey, and modalities not recommended for further development as black). Critical considerations for research agenda across all domains are indicated in lower panel. LOS: longitudinal observational study; RCT: randomized controlled trial; DECT: dual-energy computed tomography; CT: conventional computed tomography; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging.

It will not be feasible to image all potentially affected joints with any imaging modality. A data-driven strategy for choice of joints is required while assessment of a standard set of commonly affected joints versus symptomatic index joint(s) are options to be explored. The patient acceptability of different modalities also remains unclear, with duration and timing of imaging and radiation doses all likely to be important considerations. A description of the research agenda is shown in Table 2.

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

Gout special interest group proposal for a research agenda in the area of imaging for gout outcomes.

Footnotes

  • JAS is supported by grants from the Agency for Health Quality and Research Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics (AHRQ CERTs) U19 HS021110, US National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases P50 AR060772 and U34 AR062891, US National Institute on Aging U01 AG018947; US National Cancer Institute (NCI) U10 CA149950; the resources and use of facilities at the VA Medical Center at Birmingham, Alabama; and research contract CE-1304-6631 from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Lichtenstein L,
    2. Scott HW,
    3. Levin MH
    . Pathologic changes in gout; survey of eleven necropsied cases. Am J Pathol 1956;32:871–95.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Dalbeth N,
    2. So A
    . Hyperuricaemia and gout: state of the art and future perspectives. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1738–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Schumacher HR,
    2. Taylor W,
    3. Edwards L,
    4. Grainger R,
    5. Schlesinger N,
    6. Dalbeth N,
    7. et al.
    Outcome domains for studies of acute and chronic gout. J Rheumatol 2009;36:2342–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Stamp LK,
    2. Zhu X,
    3. Dalbeth N,
    4. Jordan S,
    5. Edwards NL,
    6. Taylor W
    . Serum urate as a soluble biomarker in chronic gout-evidence that serum urate fulfills the OMERACT validation criteria for soluble biomarkers. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2011;40:483–500.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Chowalloor PV,
    2. Keen HI
    . A systematic review of ultrasonography in gout and asymptomatic hyperuricaemia. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:638–45.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Schumacher HR
    . Pathology of the synovial membrane in gout. Light and electron microscopic studies. Interpretation of crystals in electron micrographs. Arthritis Rheum 1975;18 Suppl:771–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Naredo E,
    2. Uson J,
    3. Jimenez-Palop M,
    4. Martinez A,
    5. Vicente E,
    6. Brito E,
    7. et al.
    Ultrasound-detected musculoskeletal urate crystal deposition: which joints and what findings should be assessed for diagnosing gout? Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:1522–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Perez-Ruiz F,
    2. Martin I,
    3. Canteli B
    . Ultrasonographic measurement of tophi as an outcome measure for chronic gout. J Rheumatol 2007;34:1888–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Ko K-H,
    2. Hsu Y-C,
    3. Lee H-S,
    4. Lee C-H,
    5. Huang G-S
    . Tophaceous gout of the knee. J Clin Rheumatol 2010;16:209–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Schumacher HR JR,
    2. Becker MA,
    3. Edwards NL,
    4. Palmer WE,
    5. MacDonald PA,
    6. Palo W,
    7. et al.
    Magnetic resonance imaging in the quantitative assessment of gouty tophi. Int J Clin Pract 2006;60:408–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Gruber M,
    2. Bodner G,
    3. Rath E,
    4. Supp G,
    5. Weber M,
    6. Schueller-Weidekamm C
    . Dual-energy computed tomography compared with ultrasound in the diagnosis of gout. Rheumatol 2013;53:173–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Thiele RG,
    2. Schlesinger N
    . Ultrasonography shows disappearance of monosodium urate crystal deposition on hyaline cartilage after sustained normouricemia is achieved. Rheumatol Int 2009;30:495–503.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Tugwell P,
    2. Boers M
    . OMERACT conference on outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials: conclusion. J Rheumatol 1993;20:590.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Grainger R,
    2. McLaughlin RJ,
    3. Harrison AA,
    4. Harper JL
    . Hyperuricaemia elevates circulating CCL2 levels and primes monocyte trafficking in subjects with inter-critical gout. Rheumatol 2012;52:1018–21.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Martin WJ,
    2. Grainger R,
    3. Harrison A,
    4. Harper JL
    . Differences in MSU-induced superoxide responses by neutrophils from gout subjects compared to healthy controls and a role for environmental inflammatory cytokines and hyperuricemia in neutrophil function and survival. J Rheumatol 2010;37:1228–35.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Carter JD,
    2. Kedar RP,
    3. Anderson SR,
    4. Osorio AH,
    5. Albritton NL,
    6. Gnanashanmugam S,
    7. et al.
    An analysis of MRI and ultrasound imaging in patients with gout who have normal plain radiographs. Rheumatol 2009;48:1442–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Zatarain E,
    2. Strand V
    . Monitoring disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: contributions from clinical trials. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2006;2:611–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Yu JS,
    2. Chung C,
    3. Recht M,
    4. Dailiana T,
    5. Jurdi R
    . MR imaging of tophaceous gout. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:523–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Horton SC,
    2. Walsh CAE,
    3. Emery P
    . Established rheumatoid arthritis: rationale for best practice: physicians’ perspective of how to realise tight control in clinical practice. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2011;25:509–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Poh YJ,
    2. Dalbeth N,
    3. Doyle A,
    4. Mcqueen FM
    . Magnetic resonance imaging bone edema is not a major feature of gout unless there is concomitant osteomyelitis: 10-year findings from a high-prevalence population. J Rheumatol 2011;38:2475–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Bloch C,
    2. Hermann G,
    3. Yü TF
    . A radiologic reevaluation of gout: a study of 2,000 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1980;134:781–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Watt I,
    2. Middlemiss H
    . The radiology of gout. Clin Radiol 1975;26:27–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Dalbeth N,
    2. Clark B,
    3. Gregory K,
    4. Gamble G,
    5. Sheehan T,
    6. Doyle A,
    7. et al.
    Mechanisms of bone erosion in gout: a quantitative analysis using plain radiography and computed tomography. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1290–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Dalbeth N,
    2. Clark B,
    3. McQueen F,
    4. Doyle A,
    5. Taylor W
    . Validation of a radiographic damage index in chronic gout. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:1067–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 42, Issue 12
1 Dec 2015
  • 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.
Imaging as an Outcome Measure in Gout Studies: Report from the OMERACT Gout Working Group
(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
Imaging as an Outcome Measure in Gout Studies: Report from the OMERACT Gout Working Group
Rebecca Grainger, Nicola Dalbeth, Helen Keen, Laura Durcan, N. Lawrence Edwards, Fernando Perez-Ruiz, Cesar Diaz-Torne, Jasvinder A. Singh, Dinesh Khanna, Lee S. Simon, William J. Taylor
The Journal of Rheumatology Dec 2015, 42 (12) 2460-2464; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.141164

Citation Manager Formats

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

 Request Permissions

Share
Imaging as an Outcome Measure in Gout Studies: Report from the OMERACT Gout Working Group
Rebecca Grainger, Nicola Dalbeth, Helen Keen, Laura Durcan, N. Lawrence Edwards, Fernando Perez-Ruiz, Cesar Diaz-Torne, Jasvinder A. Singh, Dinesh Khanna, Lee S. Simon, William J. Taylor
The Journal of Rheumatology Dec 2015, 42 (12) 2460-2464; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.141164
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

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

Keywords

GOUT
OUTCOME MEASURES
MEDICAL IMAGING
OMERACT

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

OMERACT 12 — International Consensus Conference on Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, Budapest, Hungary, May 7–11, 2014

  • Evaluation of Minimally Invasive, Ultrasound-guided Synovial Biopsy Techniques by the OMERACT Filter — Determining Validation Requirements
  • Development of Image Overlay and Knowledge Transfer Module Technologies Aimed at Enhancing Feasibility and External Validation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Scoring Systems
  • Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Working Toward Incorporation of the Patient Perspective at OMERACT 12
Show more OMERACT 12 — International Consensus Conference on Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, Budapest, Hungary, May 7–11, 2014

Special Interest Groups I

  • The Longitudinal Reliability and Responsiveness of the OMERACT Hand Osteoarthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring System (HOAMRIS)
  • Update on Outcome Measure Development for Large Vessel Vasculitis: Report from OMERACT 12
  • Validation of the OMERACT Psoriatic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (PsAMRIS) for the Hand and Foot in a Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial
Show more Special Interest Groups I

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • gout
  • outcome measures
  • MEDICAL IMAGING
  • OMERACT

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 © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire