Computed tomography for the detection of distal radioulnar joint instability: normal variation and reliability of four CT scoring systems in 46 patients

Objectives: The diagnosis of distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) instability is clinically challenging. Computed tomography (CT) may aid in the diagnosis, but the reliability and normal variation for DRUJ translation on CT have not been established in detail. The aim of this study was to evaluate inter- and intraobserver agreement and normal ranges of CT scoring methods for determination of DRUJ translation in both posttraumatic and uninjured wrists. Materials and methods: Patients with a conservatively treated, unilateral distal radius fracture were included. CT scans of both wrists were evaluated independently, by two readers using the radioulnar line method, subluxation ratio method, epicenter method and radioulnar ratio method. The inter- and intraobserver agreement was assessed and normal values were determined based on the uninjured wrists. Results: Ninety-two wrist CTs (mean age: 56.5 years, SD: 17.0, mean follow-up 4.2 years, SD: 0.5) were evaluated. Interobserver agreement was best for the epicenter method [ICC = 0.73, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.65–0.79]. Intraobserver agreement was almost perfect for the radioulnar line method (ICC = 0.82, 95 % CI 0.77–0.87). Each method showed a wide normal range for normal DRUJ translation. Normal range for the epicenter method is −0.35 to −0.06 in pronation and −0.11 to 0.19 in supination. Conclusion: DRUJ translation on CT in pro- and supination can be reliably evaluated in both normal and posttraumatic wrists, however with large normal variation. The epicenter method seems the most reliable. Scanning of both wrists mig

41:8; Personal non-commercial use only

ABSTRACT. Objective. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) research. A European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) task force recently suggested that MRI can improve the certainty of RA diagnosis. Because this recommendation may reflect a tendency to use MRI in daily practice, thorough studies on the value of MRI are required. Thus far no large studies have evaluated the accuracy of MRI to differentiate early RA from other patients with early arthritis. We performed a large cross-sectional study to determine whether patients who are clinically classified with RA differ in MRI features compared to patients with other diagnoses. Methods. In our study, 179 patients presenting with early arthritis (median symptom duration 15.4 weeks) underwent 1.5T extremity MRI of unilateral wrist, metacarpophalangeal, and metatarsophalangeal joints according to our arthritis protocol, the foot without contrast. Images were scored according to OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring (RAMRIS) by 2 independent readers. Tenosynovitis was also assessed. The main outcome was fulfilling the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for RA. Test characteristics and areas under the receiver-operator-characteristic curves (AUC) were evaluated. In subanalyses, the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria were used as outcome, and analyses were stratified for anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA). Results. The ACR 1987 criteria were fulfilled in 43 patients (24.0%). Patients with RA had higher scores for synovitis, tenosynovitis, and bone marrow edema (BME) than patients without RA (p < 0.05). ACPA-positive patients had more BME (median scores 6.5 vs. 4.25, p = 0.016) than ACPA-negative patients. For all MRI features, the predictive value for the presence of RA was low (< 50%). For all MRI features the AUC were < 0.70. Patients who fulfilled ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria but not ACR87 criteria for RA had less synovitis than patients who were positive for RA according to both sets of criteria (p = 0.029). Conclusion. Although patients with RA had higher scores of MRI inflammation and ACPA-positive patients had more BME, the severity of MRI inflammation assessed according to RAMRIS does not accurately differentiate patients with RA from other early arthritis patients. (First Release July 1

Wikipedia: A Key Tool for Global Public Health Promotion

The Internet has become an important health information resource for patients and the general public. Wikipedia, a collaboratively written Web-based encyclopedia, has become the dominant online reference work. It is usually among the top results of search engine queries, including when medical information is sought. Since April 2004, editors have formed a group called WikiProject Medicine to coordinate and discuss the English-language Wikipedia’s medical content. This paper, written by members of the WikiProject Medicine, discusses the intricacies, strengths, and weaknesses of Wikipedia as a source of health information and compares it with other medical wikis. Medical professionals, their societies, patient groups, and institutions can help improve Wikipedia’s health-related entries. Several examples of partnerships already show that there is enthusiasm to strengthen Wikipedia’s biomedical content. Given its unique global reach, we believe its possibilities for use as a tool for worldwide health promotion are underestimated. We invite the medical community to join in editing Wikipedia, with the goal of providing people with free access to reliable, understandable, and up-to-date health information