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
    • Author 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
    • 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
    • Author 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
    • GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleOMERACT 2018: International Consensus Conference on Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, Terrigal, Australia, May 2018 Special Interest Groups, Part 1

Validity and Responsiveness of Combined Inflammation and Combined Joint Damage Scores Based on the OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis MRI Scoring System (RAMRIS)

Ulf Sundin, Mikkel Østergaard, Daniel Glinatsi, Anna-Birgitte Aga, Kim Hørslev-Petersen, Merete L. Hetland, Kristian Stengard-Pedersen, Peter Junker, Bo J. Ejbjerg, Paul Bird, Philip G. Conaghan, Siri Lillegraven and Espen A. Haavardsholm
The Journal of Rheumatology September 2019, 46 (9) 1222-1227; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.181064
Ulf Sundin
From the Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital; Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research (COPECARE), Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen; King Christian 10th Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases; University of Southern Denmark, Institute of Regional Health Research, Graasten; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Århus; Odense University Hospital; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense; Zealand University Hospital, Køge, Denmark; University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ulf Sundin
  • For correspondence: Uffe.sundin@gmail.com
Mikkel Østergaard
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mikkel Østergaard
Daniel Glinatsi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Daniel Glinatsi
Anna-Birgitte Aga
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kim Hørslev-Petersen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kim Hørslev-Petersen
Merete L. Hetland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Merete L. Hetland
Kristian Stengard-Pedersen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kristian Stengard-Pedersen
Peter Junker
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Peter Junker
Bo J. Ejbjerg
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Bird
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Paul Bird
Philip G. Conaghan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Philip G. Conaghan
Siri Lillegraven
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Siri Lillegraven
Espen A. Haavardsholm
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Espen A. Haavardsholm
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. The RAMRIS [Outcome Measures in Rheumatology rheumatoid arthritis (RA) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Scoring system] is used in clinical RA trials. We have investigated methods to combine the RAMRIS features into valid and responsive scores for inflammation and joint damage.

Methods. We used data from 3 large randomized early RA trials to assess 5 methods to develop a combined score for inflammation based on RAMRIS bone marrow edema, synovitis, and tenosynovitis scores, and a combined joint damage score based on erosions and joint space narrowing. Methods included unweighted summation, normalized summation, and 3 different variants of weighted summation of the RAMRIS features. We used a derivation cohort to calculate summation weights to maximize the responsiveness of the combined score. Construct validity of the combined scores was examined by assessing correlations to imaging, clinical, and biochemical measures. Responsiveness was tested by calculating the standardized response mean (SRM) and the relative efficiency of each score in a validation cohort.

Results. Patient characteristics, as well as baseline and followup RAMRIS scores, were comparable between cohorts. All combined scores were significantly correlated to other imaging, clinical, and biochemical measures. Inflammation scores combined by normalized and weighted summation had significantly higher responsiveness in comparison to unweighted summation, with SRM (95% CI) for unweighted summation 0.62 (0.51–0.73), normalized summation 0.73 (0.63–0.83), and weighted summation 0.74 (0.64–0.84). For the damage score, there was a trend toward higher responsiveness for weighted summation.

Conclusion. Combined MRI scores calculated by normalized or weighted summation of individual MRI pathologies were valid and responsive.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
  • MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
  • CLINICAL TRIALS
  • OUTCOME ASSESSMENT
  • OMERACT

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows detailed assessment of the synovial joint. In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), MRI is more sensitive than radiography for detecting bone erosions and cartilage loss1,2,3, and can visualize the inflammatory lesions that precede joint destruction4,5,6,7,8.

MRI features are frequently used as outcome measures in RA clinical trials8,9. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) is an independent initiative to develop and validate outcome measures for clinical trials in rheumatic diseases10,11. The OMERACT RA MRI Scoring system (RAMRIS) outlines semiquantitative scoring of 5 RA pathologies: bone erosions, joint space narrowing (JSN), synovitis, tenosynovitis, and bone marrow edema (BME) in the wrist and metacarpophalangeal joints2,12,13. However, the primary interest in clinical studies might be the total inflammatory activity or the progression of total structural joint damage.

The objective of this study was to develop and validate 2 combined MRI scores, one for inflammation and one for joint damage, derived from the 5 RAMRIS pathology scores, with emphasis on responsiveness and construct validity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Validation and derivation cohorts

We used data from the ARCTIC14 trial as a derivation cohort for the combined scores. Performance of the scores was assessed in a validation cohort of pooled data from the CIMESTRA15 and OPERA16 study groups. ARCTIC was a 24-month randomized clinical trial, studying ultrasound (US) for treatment decision making. Participants (n = 230) were patients who had early RA and were aged 18–75 years, and were naive of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). They fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism criteria, with indication for DMARD treatment. Both CIMESTRA and OPERA were randomized controlled trials (RCT). CIMESTRA studied treatment with methotrexate (MTX) and intraarticular betamethasone in early RA, and the additional effect of adding cyclosporine to the regimen. OPERA studied the effect of adding adalimumab to MTX and intraarticular triamcinolone as first-line therapy in early RA. Participants (CIMESTRA n = 160, OPERA n = 180) were > 17 years, fulfilled the 1987 ACR criteria, and had moderate to severe disease activity.

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The trials were approved by the local ethics committees (approval reference numbers: ARCTIC: 2010/744; CIMESTRA: M-1959-98; OPERA: VEK-20070008).

Imaging

MRI of one hand (acquisition as outlined in the RAMRIS core set12) was performed together with conventional radiographs of hands and feet at baseline and 12 months in all 3 trials. A single reader (CIMESTRA/OPERA: DG, ARCTIC: US) blinded to the treatment arm and clinical data scored the MR images according to RAMRIS, with known chronological order. Reliability of scorings was overall very good (intra- and interreader comparisons for ARCTIC: Supplementary Table 1, available with the online version of this article; intrareader for CIMESTRA/OPERA: previously published17). Radiographs were scored according to the van der Heijde-modified Sharp score. In ARCTIC, US was performed yearly for all patients according to a validated scoring system18.

Clinical variables

At each visit, these variables were registered: tender and swollen joint counts, pain, patient’s and physician’s global assessments, and C-reactive protein. In ARCTIC, erythrocyte sedimentation rate was also analyzed. Physical function was assessed by the Health Assessment Questionnaire in CIMESTRA and OPERA, and by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information 20-item short-form in ARCTIC.

Calculation of combined scores

We categorized RAMRIS scores as either inflammation (synovitis, tenosynovitis, BME) or damage (erosions, JSN), and calculated the combined score for each category. Calculation was done using 5 different approaches, aiming to find which method would provide the most responsive combined score.

Approach 1: Unweighted summation

Combined scores were calculated by numerical summation of the RAMRIS scores for each category. These scores were used as reference.

Additionally, we tested several methods for transformation of the RAMRIS scores, before summation.

Approach 2: Normalized summation

The RAMRIS scores differ in range, and will therefore have a disproportionate part of the total score if summarized without transformation. To counteract this, scores were transformed to the same range before summation.

Approach 3: Weighted summation

Each RAMRIS score was transformed by a multiplication factor (weight). To maximize responsiveness, weights were calculated in a data-driven approach to give the highest standardized response mean (SRM) to the resulting score in the derivation cohort. To make the system more adaptable, each RAMRIS score was divided into 3 anatomical areas, which were weighted individually. The areas and corresponding weights are shown in the Appendix 1.

Approach 4. Adjusted-weighted summation

To simplify the weighting system, data-derived weights from Approach 3 were rescaled to whole numbers according to rank. Adjustment of ± 1 step was allowed to optimize performance (Appendix 1).

Approach 5. Single site–weighted summation

As in Approach 3, but weights were calculated for each individual bone, joint, and tendon.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics were described as proportions or median values as appropriate. Construct validity of the suggested combined MRI scores was tested by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficients to established disease measures. Responsiveness was tested by calculating the SRM for the suggested combined scores, the RAMRIS scores, and radiographic variables: Embedded Image

Relative efficiency was computed for each combined score with unweighted summation as reference: Embedded Image

CI for SRM and relative efficiency were estimated by bootstrapping with 5000 replications. Only patients where all variables were available for baseline and the 12-month visit were included. Data analyses were undertaken using STATA v.14 (StataCorp).

RESULTS

Patient characteristics

Data from 194 patients from the ARCTIC trial (derivation cohort), and 195 patients from CIMESTRA and OPERA (validation cohort) were used. A larger proportion of the patients in the derivation cohort were positive for anticyclic citrullinated peptide (82% vs 61.5%, p < 0.001), and disease activity variables were somewhat higher in the validation cohort (Supplementary Table 2, available with the online version of this article). Duration of symptoms at inclusion was longer in the derivation cohort (median 166 days vs 91 days, p < 0.001). Otherwise, patient characteristics were comparable between the cohorts.

MRI variables

Baseline scores for synovitis were slightly higher in the validation cohort. Median 1-year changes of inflammatory scores were similar in both cohorts. Baseline median erosion scores were similar in both cohorts, while the JSN score was higher in the validation cohort. The median 1-year changes for both erosions and JSN were comparable between the cohorts (Supplementary Table 3).

Construct validity

All combined scores were significantly correlated to other imaging, clinical, and biochemical measures. MRI inflammation scores were most strongly associated with US inflammation variables, while associations between MRI damage scores and radiographic measures were overall moderate (Table 1).

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

Spearman correlation coefficients between MRI combined scores and clinical, radiographic (CR), and ultrasound variables, all cohorts.

Responsiveness

For inflammation, relative efficiency for normalized summation (Approach 2), weighted summation (Approach 3), and adjusted-weighted summation (Approach 4) were statistically significantly superior to unweighted summation (Approach 1), when tested in the validation cohort (Figure 1). Approaches 3 and 4 provided the numerically highest SRM values (Table 2); however, differences between Approaches 2, 3, and 4 were not statistically significant. For damage, no approach was significantly superior to unweighted summation, although Approach 4 provided the highest SRM values.

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

Relative efficiency of combined scores for inflammation and joint damage, validation cohort. Error bars represent 95% CI.

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

Standardized response means of combined scores, individual MRI pathologies, radiographic (CR), and clinical variables (95% CI).

DISCUSSION

We have developed and tested combined MRI scores identifying the principal pathogenic constructs of RA: inflammation and damage. For clinical trial settings, these 2 measures might be more important than the scores of the individual MRI lesions.

In previous studies, combined scores have been obtained through slightly differing methods3,17,19. To ensure comparability between studies, and to avoid biased reporting, there is a need for consensus regarding which method to use20.

It could be argued that if responsiveness were the sole priority, it would be easiest to use only the most responsive single pathology, e.g., tenosynovitis in the present study. However, that would discard a large proportion of MRI information. By weighted summation, we could obtain responsive combined scores, while still covering the full spectrum of pathology. Approaches using complex weightings derived from data resulted in the numerically most responsive scores, but the gain was marginal compared to the simpler normalization approach.

The strengths of these analyses include the large datasets, with baseline and 1-year followup MRI data of 289 patients from 3 RCT in early RA. By separating our data in derivation and validation cohorts, we were able to assess the validity and generalizability of our proposed combined scores with higher confidence than if only 1 dataset had been used.

Limitations include the lack of opportunity to examine the discriminative properties of the combined scores, because none of the original trials showed significant group differences for clinical or MRI endpoints. A dataset with clinical differences between the treatment arms is needed to examine this.

The SRM values of our scores were relatively low compared to a similar study19. This might be explained by limited changes in RAMRIS scores during the followup, especially for joint damage.

We found that combined MRI scores for inflammation and joint damage can be responsive and valid. Our data indicate that the responsiveness of combined scores for inflammation could be improved by using normalized or weighted summation of the RAMRIS pathologies, rather than unweighted summation. However, our results do not support promoting one of these approaches over another. For the combined damage scores, there was a trend favoring weighted summation, but results were inconclusive. The discriminative properties of the scores need to be tested in placebo-controlled clinical trials.

ONLINE SUPPLEMENT

Supplementary material accompanies the online version of this article.

Acknowledgment

We thank Joe Sexton for help and advice on statistical calculations and support on using statistical software, and Lena Bugge Nordberg and Nina Paulshus Sundlisæter for help with the ARCTIC database. We also thank all investigators, study personnel, and patients who have contributed to the clinical trials that this study is based on.

APPENDIX 1.

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

Anatomical areas for Approach 3–4, and weights applied by Approach 4.

  • Accepted for publication December 6, 2018.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Døhn UM,
    2. Ejbjerg B,
    3. Boonen A,
    4. Hetland ML,
    5. Hansen MS,
    6. Knudsen LS,
    7. et al.
    No overall progression and occasional repair of erosions despite persistent inflammation in adalimumab-treated rheumatoid arthritis patients: Results from a longitudinal comparative MRI, ultrasonography, CT and radiography study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:252–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ostergaard M,
    2. Bøyesen P,
    3. Eshed I,
    4. Gandjbakhch F,
    5. Lillegraven S,
    6. Bird P,
    7. et al.
    Development and preliminary validation of a magnetic resonance imaging joint space narrowing score for use in rheumatoid arthritis: potential adjunct to the OMERACT RA MRI scoring system. J Rheumatol 2011;38:2045–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Peterfy CG,
    2. Olech E,
    3. DiCarlo JC,
    4. Merrill JT,
    5. Countryman PJ,
    6. Gaylis NB
    . Monitoring cartilage loss in the hands and wrists in rheumatoid arthritis with magnetic resonance imaging in a multi-center clinical trial: IMPRESS (nct00425932). Arthritis Res Ther 2013;15:R44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Bøyesen P,
    2. Haavardsholm EA,
    3. Ostergaard M,
    4. van der Heijde D,
    5. Sesseng S,
    6. Kvien TK
    . MRI in early rheumatoid arthritis: synovitis and bone marrow oedema are independent predictors of subsequent radiographic progression. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:428–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Conaghan PG,
    2. O’Connor P,
    3. McGonagle D,
    4. Astin P,
    5. Wakefield RJ,
    6. Gibbon WW,
    7. et al.
    Elucidation of the relationship between synovitis and bone damage: a randomized magnetic resonance imaging study of individual joints in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48:64–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Haavardsholm EA,
    2. Bøyesen P,
    3. Østergaard M,
    4. Schildvold A,
    5. Kvien TK
    . Magnetic resonance imaging findings in 84 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: bone marrow oedema predicts erosive progression. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:794–800.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hetland ML,
    2. Stengaard-Pedersen K,
    3. Junker P,
    4. Østergaard M,
    5. Ejbjerg BJ,
    6. Jacobsen S,
    7. et al;
    8. CIMESTRA study group
    . Radiographic progression and remission rates in early rheumatoid arthritis - MRI bone oedema and anti-CCP predicted radiographic progression in the 5-year extension of the double-blind randomised CIMESTRA trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1789–95.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Peterfy C,
    2. Østergaard M,
    3. Conaghan PG
    . MRI comes of age in RA clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:794–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. American College of Rheumatology Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials Task Force Imaging Group and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Magnetic Resonance Imaging Inflammatory Arthritis Working Group
    . Review: the utility of magnetic resonance imaging for assessing structural damage in randomized controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:2513–23.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Kirwan JR,
    3. Tugwell P,
    4. Beaton D,
    5. Bingham CO III,
    6. Conaghan PG,
    7. et al.
    The OMERACT Handbook. [Internet. Accessed September 3, 2018.] Available from: https://omeract.org/resources
  11. 11.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Kirwan JR,
    3. Wells G,
    4. Beaton D,
    5. Gossec L,
    6. d’Agostino MA,
    7. et al.
    Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:745–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Østergaard M,
    2. Peterfy C,
    3. Conaghan P,
    4. McQueen F,
    5. Bird P,
    6. Ejbjerg B,
    7. et al.
    OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Core set of MRI acquisitions, joint pathology definitions, and the OMERACT RA-MRI scoring system. J Rheumatol 2003;30:1385–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Glinatsi D,
    2. Bird P,
    3. Gandjbakhch F,
    4. Haavardsholm EA,
    5. Peterfy CG,
    6. Vital EM,
    7. et al.
    Development and validation of the OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance tenosynovitis scoring system in a multireader exercise. J Rheumatol 2017;44:1688–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Haavardsholm EA,
    2. Aga AB,
    3. Olsen IC,
    4. Lillegraven S,
    5. Hammer HB,
    6. Uhlig T,
    7. et al.
    Ultrasound in management of rheumatoid arthritis: ARCTIC randomised controlled strategy trial. BMJ 2016;354:i4205.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hetland ML,
    2. Stengaard-Pedersen K,
    3. Junker P,
    4. Lottenburger T,
    5. Ellingsen T,
    6. Andersen LS,
    7. et al;
    8. CIMESTRA Study Group
    . Combination treatment with methotrexate, cyclosporine, and intraarticular betamethasone compared with methotrexate and intraarticular betamethasone in early active rheumatoid arthritis: An investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:1401–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Hørslev-Petersen K,
    2. Hetland ML,
    3. Junker P,
    4. Pødenphant J,
    5. Ellingsen T,
    6. Ahlquist P,
    7. et al;
    8. OPERA Study-Group
    . Adalimumab added to a treat-to-target strategy with methotrexate and intra-articular triamcinolone in early rheumatoid arthritis increased remission rates, function and quality of life. The OPERA study: an investigator-initiated, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:654–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Glinatsi D,
    2. Baker JF,
    3. Hetland ML,
    4. Horslev-Petersen K,
    5. Ejbjerg BJ,
    6. Stengaard-Pedersen K,
    7. et al.
    Magnetic resonance imaging assessed inflammation in the wrist is associated with patient-reported physical impairment, global assessment of disease activity and pain in early rheumatoid arthritis: longitudinal results from two randomised controlled trials. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:1707–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Hammer HB,
    2. Bolton-King P,
    3. Bakkeheim V,
    4. Berg TH,
    5. Sundt E,
    6. Kongtorp AK,
    7. et al.
    Examination of intra and interrater reliability with a new ultrasonographic reference atlas for scoring of synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1995–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Haavardsholm EA,
    2. Østergaard M,
    3. Hammer HB,
    4. Bøyesen P,
    5. Boonen A,
    6. van der Heijde D,
    7. et al.
    Monitoring anti-TNFalpha treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: responsiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography of the dominant wrist joint compared with conventional measures of disease activity and structural damage. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1572–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Østergaard M,
    2. Peterfy CG,
    3. Bird P,
    4. Gandjbakhch F,
    5. Glinatsi D,
    6. Eshed I,
    7. et al.
    The OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scoring system: updated recommendations by the OMERACT MRI in arthritis working group. J Rheumatol 2017;44:1706–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 46, Issue 9
1 Sep 2019
  • 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.
Validity and Responsiveness of Combined Inflammation and Combined Joint Damage Scores Based on the OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis MRI Scoring System (RAMRIS)
(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
Validity and Responsiveness of Combined Inflammation and Combined Joint Damage Scores Based on the OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis MRI Scoring System (RAMRIS)
Ulf Sundin, Mikkel Østergaard, Daniel Glinatsi, Anna-Birgitte Aga, Kim Hørslev-Petersen, Merete L. Hetland, Kristian Stengard-Pedersen, Peter Junker, Bo J. Ejbjerg, Paul Bird, Philip G. Conaghan, Siri Lillegraven, Espen A. Haavardsholm
The Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2019, 46 (9) 1222-1227; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.181064

Citation Manager Formats

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

 Request Permissions

Share
Validity and Responsiveness of Combined Inflammation and Combined Joint Damage Scores Based on the OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis MRI Scoring System (RAMRIS)
Ulf Sundin, Mikkel Østergaard, Daniel Glinatsi, Anna-Birgitte Aga, Kim Hørslev-Petersen, Merete L. Hetland, Kristian Stengard-Pedersen, Peter Junker, Bo J. Ejbjerg, Paul Bird, Philip G. Conaghan, Siri Lillegraven, Espen A. Haavardsholm
The Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2019, 46 (9) 1222-1227; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.181064
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
Save to my folders

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
    • Acknowledgment
    • APPENDIX 1.
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Keywords

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
CLINICAL TRIALS
OUTCOME ASSESSMENT
OMERACT

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Update on Outcome Measure Development in Large-vessel Vasculitis: Report from OMERACT 2018
  • Development and Validation of an OMERACT MRI Whole-Body Score for Inflammation in Peripheral Joints and Entheses in Inflammatory Arthritis (MRI-WIPE)
  • Developing a Preliminary Definition and Domains of Flare in Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis (OA): Consensus Building of the Flare-in-OA OMERACT Group
Show more OMERACT 2018: International Consensus Conference on Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, Terrigal, Australia, May 2018 Special Interest Groups, Part 1

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • rheumatoid arthritis
  • magnetic resonance imaging
  • CLINICAL TRIALS
  • outcome assessment
  • 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
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2016 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire