Advanced Imaging in Osteoarthritis

CONTEXT: Radiography is widely accepted as the gold standard for diagnosing osteoarthritis (OA), but it has limitations when assessing early stage OA and monitoring progression. While there are improvements in the treatment of OA, the challenge is early recognition. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: MEDLINE and PubMed as well as professional orthopaedic and imaging websites were reviewed from 2006 to 2016. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can provide the most comprehensive assessment of joint injury and OA with the advantages of being noninvasive and multiplanar with excellent soft tissue contrast. However, MRI is expensive, time consuming, and not widely used for monitoring OA clinically. Computed tomography (CT) and CT arthrography (CTA) can also be used to evaluate OA, but these are also invasive and require radiation exposure. Ultrasound is particularly useful for evaluation of synovitis but not for progression of OA. CONCLUSION: MRI, CT, and CTA are available for the diagnosis and monitoring of OA. Improvement in techniques and decrease in cost can allow some of these modalities to be effective methods of detecting early OA

Implications of Web of Science journal impact factor for scientific output evaluation in 16 institutions and investigators' opinion.

Journal based metrics is known not to be ideal for the measurement of the quality of individual researcher's scientific output. In the current report 16 contributors from Hong Kong SAR, India, Korea, Taiwan, Russia, Germany, Japan, Turkey, Belgium, France, Italy, UK, The Netherlands, Malaysia, and USA are invited. The following six questions were asked: (I) is Web of Sciences journal impact factor (IF) and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) citation the main academic output performance evaluation tool in your institution? and your country? (II) How does Google citation count in your institution? and your country? (III) If paper is published in a non-SCI journal but it is included in PubMed and searchable by Google scholar, how it is valued when compared with a paper published in a journal with an IF? (IV) Do you value to publish a piece of your work in a non-SCI journal as much as a paper published in a journal with an IF? (V) What is your personal view on the metric measurement of scientific output? (VI) Overall, do you think Web of Sciences journal IF is beneficial, or actually it is doing more harm? The results show that IF and ISI citation is heavily affecting the academic life in most of the institutions. Google citation and evaluation, while is being used and convenient and speedy, has not gain wide 'official' recognition as a tool for scientific output evaluation