Advertisement

Current Rheumatology Reports

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 378–385 | Cite as

Ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in early rheumatoid arthritis: Recent advances

  • Mikkel ØstergaardEmail author
  • Uffe M. DØhn
  • Bo J. Ejbjerg
  • Fiona M. McQueen
Article

Abstract

Efficient methods for diagnosis, monitoring, and prognostication are essential in early rheumatoid arthritis. Data on the value of ultrasonography and MRI are accumulating rapidly, fueling their increasing use in early rheumatoid arthritis. This review focuses on recent advances in the clinical applications of these imaging modalities.

Keywords

Rheumatoid Arthritis Synovitis Rheumatol Bone Erosion Early Rheumatoid Arthritis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Brower AC: Use of the radiograph to measure the course of rheumatoid arthritis. The gold standard versus fool’s gold. Arthritis Rheum 1990, 33:316–324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McQueen FM, Stewart N, Crabbe J, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist in early rheumatoid arthritis reveals a high prevalence of erosion at four months after symptom onset. Ann Rheum Dis 1998, 57:350–356.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Backhaus M, Kamradt T, Sandrock D, et al.: Arthritis of the.nger joints. A comprehensive approach comparing conventional radiography, scintigraphy, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 1999, 42:1232–1245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klarlund M, Østergaard M, Jensen KE, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging, radiography, and scintigraphy of the finger joints: one year follow up of patients with early arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2000, 59:521–528.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindegaard H, VallØ J, Hørslev-Petersen K, et al.: Low field dedicated magnetic resonance imaging in untreated rheumatoid arthritis of recent onset. Ann Rheum Dis 2001, 60:770–776.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grassi W, Tittarelli E, Pirani O, et al.: Ultrasound examination of metacarpophalangeal joints in rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 1993, 22:243–247.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grassi W, Cervini C: Ultrasonography in rheumatology: an evolving technique. Ann Rheum Dis 1998, 57:268–271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Newman JS, Laing TJ, McCarthy CJ, et al.: Power Doppler sonography of synovitis: assessment of therapeutic response—preliminary observations. Radiology 1996, 198:582–584.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Szkudlarek M, Court-Payen M, Strandberg C, et al.: Power Doppler ultrasonography for assessment of synovitis in the metacarpophalangeal joints of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 2001, 44:2018–2023.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hau M, Schultz H, Tony HP, et al.: Evaluation of pannus and vascularization of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints in rheumatoid arthritis by high-resolution ultrasound (multidimensional linear array). Arthritis Rheum 1999, 42:2303–2308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferrell WR, Balint PV, Egan CG, et al.: Metacarpophalangeal joints in rheumatoid arthritis: laser Doppler imaging—initial experience. Radiology 2001, 220:257–262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Qvistgaard E, Rogind H, Torp-Pedersen S, et al.: Quantitative ultrasonography in rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation of inflammation by Doppler technique. Ann Rheum Dis 2001, 60:690–693.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor PC: VEGF and imaging of vessels in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res 2002, 4(Suppl_3):S99–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hau M, Kneitz C, Tony HP, et al.: High resolution ultrasound detects a decrease in pannus vascularisation of small finger joints in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving treatment with soluble tumour necrosis factor alpha receptor (etanercept). Ann Rheum Dis 2002, 61:55–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Terslev L, Torp-Pedersen S, Qvistgaard E, et al.: Estimation of inflammation by Doppler ultrasound: quantitative changes after intra-articular treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2003, 62:1049–1053.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Naredo E, Bonilla G, Gamero F, et al.: Assessment of inflammatory activity in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparative study of clinical evaluation with grey scale and power Doppler ultrasonography. Ann Rheum Dis 2005, 64:375–381.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walther M, Harms H, Krenn V, et al.: Correlation of power Doppler sonography with vascularity of synovial tissue of the knee joint in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2001, 44:331–338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walther M, Harms H, Krenn V, et al.: Synovial tissue of the hip at power Doppler US: correlation between vascularity and power Doppler US signal. Radiology 2002, 225:225–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Backhaus M, Burmester GR, Sandrock D, et al.: Prospective two year follow up study comparing novel and conventional imaging procedures in patients with arthritic finger joints. Ann Rheum Dis 2002, 61:895–904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Terslev L, Torp-Pedersen S, Savnik A, et al.: Doppler ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging of synovial inflammation of the hand in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparative study. Arthritis Rheum 2003, 48:2434–2441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Szkudlarek M, Narvestad E, Klarlund M, et al.: Ultrasonography of the metatarsophalangeal joints in rheumatoid arthritis, compared with magnetic resonance imaging, conventional radiography and clinical examination. Arthritis Rheum 2004, 50:2103–2112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scheel AK, Hermann KG, Kahler E, et al.: A novel ultrasonographic synovitis scoring system suitable for analyzing flnger joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2005, 52:733–743.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szkudlarek M, Klarlund M, Narvestad E, et al.: Ultrasonography of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with magnetic resonance imaging, conventional radiography and clinical examination. Arthritis Res Ther 2006, 8:R52. Compares.ndings by US, MRI, and X-ray in RA MCP and PIP joints.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grassi W, Tittarelli E, Blasetti P, et al.: Finger tendon involvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Evaluation with highfrequency ultrasound. Arthritis Rheum 1995, 38:786–794.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Swen WAA, Jacobs JWG, Hubach PCG, et al.: Comparison of sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of partial tears of finger extensor tendons in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2000, 39:55–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grassi W, Filippucci E, Farina A, et al.: Sonographic imaging of tendons. Arthritis Rheum 2000, 43:969–976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wakefield RJ, Gibbon WW, Conaghan PG, et al.: The value of sonography in the detection of bone erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000, 43:2762–2770.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alarcon GS, Lopez-Ben R, Moreland LW: High-resolution ultrasound for the study of target joints in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2002, 46:1969–1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hoving JL, Buchbinder R, Hall S, et al.: A comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, sonography, and radiography of the hand in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2004, 31:663–675.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    DØhn UM, Ejbjerg BJ, Court-Payen M, et al.: Are bone erosions detected by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography true erosions? A comparison with computed tomography in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints. Arthritis Res Ther 2006, 8:R112. Documents that the far majority of radiographically invisible MRI and US bone erosions in MCP joints can be confirmed by CT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frediani B, Falsetti P, Storri L, et al.: Ultrasound and clinical evaluation of quadricipital tendon enthesitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 2002, 21:294–298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Terslev L, Torp-Pedersen S, Qvistgaard E, et al.: Effects of treatment with etanercept (Enbrel, TNRF:Fc) on rheumatoid arthritis evaluated by Doppler ultrasonography. Ann Rheum Dis 2003, 62:178–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ribbens C, Andre B, Marcelis S, et al.: Rheumatoid hand joint synovitis: gray-scale and power Doppler US quantifications following anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha treatment: pilot study. Radiology 2003, 229:562–569.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Taylor PC, Steuer A, Gruber J, et al.: Comparison of ultrasonographic assessment of synovitis and joint vascularity with radiographic evaluation in a randomized, placebocontrolled study of infliximab therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2004, 50:1107–1116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Østergaard M, Szkudlarek M: Ultrasonography—a valid method for assessment of rheumatoid arthritis? [editorial]. Arthritis Rheum 2005, 52:681–686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Naredo E, Gamero F, Bonilla G, et al.: Ultrasonographic assessment of inflammatory activity in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of extended versus reduced joint evaluation. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005, 23:881–884.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Scheel AK, Hermann KG, Ohrndorf S, et al.: Prospective 7 year follow up imaging study comparing radiography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis.nger joints. Ann Rheum Dis 2006, 65:595–600. The only published long-term follow-up study of US, MRI, and X-ray of arthritic.nger joints.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    McQueen FM, Stewart N, Crabbe J, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist in early rheumatoid arthritis reveals progression of erosions despite clinical improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 1999, 58:156–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Østergaard M, Hansen M, Stoltenberg M, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging-determined synovial membrane volume as a marker of disease activity and a predictor of progressive joint destruction in the wrists of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1999, 42:918–929.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Savnik A, Malmskov H, Thomsen HS, et al.: MRI of the wrist and finger joints in inflammatory joint diseases at 1-year interval: MRI features to predict bone erosions. Eur Radiol 2002, 12:1203–1210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McQueen FM, Benton N, Perry D, et al.: Bone edema scored on magnetic resonance imaging scans of the dominant carpus at presentation predicts radiographic joint damage of the hands and feet six years later in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003, 48:1814–1827.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Østergaard M, Hansen M, Stoltenberg M, et al.: New radiographic bone erosions in the wrists of patients with rheumatoid arthritis are detectable with magnetic resonance imaging a median of two years earlier. Arthritis Rheum 2003, 48:2128–2131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lindegaard HM, Vallo J, Horslev-Petersen K, et al.: Low-cost, low-.eld dedicated extremity MRI in early RA—a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Rheum Dis 2006, Epub ahead of print. Documents that bone erosions detected by a dedicated extremity MRI unit predicts subsequent erosive progression on X-ray in early RA.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Østergaard M, Wiell C: Ultrasonography in rheumatoid arthritis: a very promising method still needing more validation. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2004, 16:223–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Balint PV, Kane D, Wilson H, et al.: Ultrasonography of entheseal insertions in the lower limb in spondyloarthropathy. Ann Rheum Dis 2002, 61:905–910.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Szkudlarek M, Court-Payen, Jacobsen S, et al.: Interobserver agreement in ultrasonography of the.nger and toe joints in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003, 48:955–962.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Szkudlarek M: Ultrasonography of the.nger and toe joints in rheumatoid arthritis [PhD dissertation]. University of Copenhagen, 2003.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wakefield RJ, Balint PV, Szkudlarek M, et al.: Musculoskeletal ultrasound including definitions for ultrasonographic pathology. J Rheumatol 2005, 32:2485–2487. Describes the initial steps of OMERACT validation of US measures in RA.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Naredo E, Moller I, Moragues C, et al.: Inter-observer reliability in musculoskeletal ultrasonography: results from a "Teach-the-Teachers" rheumatologist course. Ann Rheum Dis 2005, 65:14–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Scheel AK, Schmidt WA, Hermann KG, et al.: Interobserver reliability of rheumatologists performing musculoskeletal ultrasonography: results from a EULAR "Train the trainers" course. Ann Rheum Dis 2005, 64:1043–1049.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rominger MB, Bernreuter WK, Kenney PJ, et al.: MR imaging of the hands in early rheumatoid arthritis: preliminary results. Radiographics 1993, 13:37–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sugimoto H, Takeda A, Hyodoh K: Early stage rheumatoid arthritis: Prospective study of the effectiveness of MR imaging for diagnosis. Radiology 2000, 216:569–575.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    McGonagle D, Conaghan P, O’Connor P, et al.: The relationship between synovitis and bone changes in early untreated rheumatoid arthritis. A controlled magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthritis Rheum 1999, 42:1706–1711.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ostendorf B, Peters R, Dann P, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging and miniarthroscopy of metacarpophalangeal joints: sensitive detection of morphologic changes in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2001, 44:2492–2502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    König H, Sieper J, Wolf KJ: Rheumatoid arthritis: Evaluation of hypervascular and.brous pannus with dynamic MR imaging enhanced with gd-DTPA. Radiology 1990, 176:473–477.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gaffney K, Cookson J, Blake D, et al.: Quantification of rheumatoid synovitis by magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 1995, 38:1610–1617.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tamai K, Yamato M, Yamaguchi T, et al.: Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1994, 8:1151–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Østergaard M, Stoltenberg M, LØvgreen-Nielsen P, et al.: Quantification of synovitis by MRI: correlation between dynamic and static gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and microscopic and macroscopic signs of synovial inflammation. Magn Reson Imaging 1998, 16:743–754.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Østergaard M, Stoltenberg M, LØvgreen-Nielsen P, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging-determined synovial membrane and joint effusion volumes in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: comparison with the macroscopic and microscopic appearance of the synovium. Arthritis Rheum 1997, 40:1856–1867.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Perry D, Stewart N, Benton N, et al.: Detection of erosions in the rheumatoid hand; a comparative study of multidetector computerized tomography versus magnetic resonance scanning. J Rheumatol 2005, 32:256–267. Finds a high agreement between MRI and CT for detection of wrist bone erosions in established RA.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Østergaard M, Duer A, HØrslev-Petersen K: Can magnetic resonance imaging differentiate undifferentiated arthritis? Arthritis Res Ther 2005, 7:243–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Jevtic V, Watt I, Rozman B, et al.: Distinctive radiological features of small hand joints in rheumatoid arthritis and seronegative spondyloarthritis by contrast-enhanced (Gd-DTPA) magnetic resonance imaging. Skeletal Radiol 1995, 24:351–355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Giovagnoni A, Grassi W, Terilli F, et al.: MRI of the hand in psoriatic and rheumatical arthritis. Eur Radiol 1995, 5:590–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Boutry N, Hachulla E, Flipo RM, et al.: MR imaging involvement of the hands in early rheumatoid arthritis: Comparison with systemic lupus erythematosus and primary Sjogren syndrome [abstract]. Eur Radiol 2005, 15(Suppl 1):262.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Duer A, Østergaard M, VallØ J, HØrslev-Petersen K: Value of magnetic resonance imaging and bone scintigraphy in the differential diagnosis of unclassified polyarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2005, 52:S1842.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Conaghan PG, O’Connor P, McGonagle D, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Tanaka N, Sakahashi H, Ishii S, et al.: Synovial membrane enhancement and bone erosion by magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of radiologic progression in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int 2005, 25:103–107. In this early RA cohort study, MRI was the best predictor of severe radiological progression 10 years later.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Benton N, Stewart N, Crabbe J, et al.: MRI of the wrist in early rheumatoid arthritis can be used to predict functional outcome at 6 years. Ann Rheum Dis 2004, 63:555–561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zheng S, Robinson E, Yeoman S, et al.: MRI bone oedema predicts eight year tendon function at the wrist but not the requirement for orthopaedic surgery in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006, 65:607–611.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    McQueen F, Beckley V, Crabbe J, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging evidence of tendinopathy in early rheumatoid arthritis predicts tendon rupture at six years. Arthritis Rheum 2005, 52:744–751. Describes that MRI evidence of tendinopathy in early RA predicts tendon rupture at 6 years.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Østergaard M, Klarlund M, Lassere M, et al.: Interreader agreement in the assessment of magnetic resonance images of rheumatoid arthritis wrist and finger joints—an international multicenter study. J Rheumatol 2001, 28:1143–1150.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Østergaard M, Conaghan P, O’Connor P, et al.: Reducing costs, duration and invasiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis by omitting intravenous gadolinium injection—does it affect assessments of synovitis, bone erosions and bone edema? [abstract]. Ann Rheum Dis 2003, 62(Suppl I):67.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Conaghan P, Lassere M, Østergaard M, et al.: OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Exercise 4: an international multicenter longitudinal study using the RA-MRI Score. J Rheumatol 2003, 30:1376–1379.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lassere M, McQueen F, Østergaard M, et al.: OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Exercise 3: an international multicenter reliability study using the RA-MRI Score. J Rheumatol 2003, 30:1366–1375.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Østergaard M, Peterfy C, Conaghan P, 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, 30:1385–1386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Haavardsholm EA, Østergaard M, Ejbjerg BJ, et al.: Reliability and sensitivity to change of the OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score in a multireader, longitudinal setting. Arthritis Rheum 2005, 52:3860–3867. Documents that very high interreader and intrareader reliablities of OMERACT RAMRIS scoring can be achieved after proper reader training and calibration.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Østergaard M, Edmonds J, McQueen F, et al.: The EULAROMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas. Ann Rheum Dis 2005, 64(Suppl 1):i2-i55. This reference image atlas provides a tool for standardized scoring of MR images for inflammatory and destructive changes by comparison with standard reference images.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Boers M, Brooks P, Strand CV, et al.: The OMERACT.lter for Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1998, 25:198–199.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Østergaard M: Magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis. Quantitative methods for assessment of the inflammatory process in peripheral joints. Dan Med Bull 1999, 46:313–344.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ejbjerg B: Magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis. A study of aspects of joint selection, contrast agent use and type of MRI unit [PhD dissertation]. University of Copenhagen, 2005.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Quinn MA, Conaghan PG, O’Connor PJ, et al.: Very early treatment with infliximab in addition to methotrexate in early, poor-prognosis rheumatoid arthritis reduces magnetic resonance imaging evidence of synovitis and damage, with sustained benefit after infliximab withdrawal: results from a twelve-month randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005, 52:27–35. In this randomized placebo-controlled trial, MRI of unilateral MCP joints discriminated better between active and placebo therapy than X-ray of both hands, wrists, and forefeet.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Zikou AK, Argyropoulou MI, Voulgari PV, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging quantification of hand synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with adalimumab. J Rheumatol 2006, 33:219–223.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Argyropoulou MI, Glatzouni A, Voulgari PV, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging quantiflcation of hand synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with infliximab. Joint Bone Spine 2005, 72:557–561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Østergaard M, Duer A, Nielsen H, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging for accelerated assessment of drug effect and prediction of subsequent radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: a study of patients receiving combined anakinra and methotrexate treatment. Ann Rheum Dis 2005, 64:1503–1506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Ejbjerg BJ, Vestergaard A, Jacobsen S, et al.: The smallest detectable difference and sensitivity to change of magnetic resonance imaging and radiographic scoring of structural joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis.nger, 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, 52:2300–2306. Documents that MRI of unilateral wrist and MCP joints is more sensitive to change in bone erosion than X-ray of both hands, wrists, and feet.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Savnik A, Malmskov H, Thomsen HS, et al.: MRI of the arthritic small joints: comparison of extremity MRI (0.2 T) vs high-.eld MRI (1.5 T). Eur Radiol 2001, 11:1030–1038.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Taouli B, Zaim S, Peterfy CG, et al.: Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand and Wrist: Comparison of Three Imaging Techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004, 182:937–943.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Crues JV, Shellock FG, Dardashti S, et al.: Identification of wrist and metacarpophalangeal joint erosions using a portable magnetic resonance imaging system compared to conventional radiographs. J Rheumatol 2004, 31:676–685.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Ejbjerg BJ, Narvestad E, Jacobsen S, et al.: Optimised, low cost, low.eld dedicated extremity MRI is highly specific and sensitive for synovitis and bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis wrist and finger joints: comparison with conventional high field MRI and radiography. Ann Rheum Dis 2005, 64:1280–1287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    American College of Rheumatology Extremity Magnetic Resonance Imaging Task Force: Extremity magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis: report of the American College of Rheumatology Extremity Magnetic Resonance Imaging Task Force. Arthritis Rheum 2006, 54:1034–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Ejbjerg BJ, Vestergaard A, Jacobsen S, et al.: Conventional radiography requires a MRI-estimated bone volume loss of 20% to 30% to allow certain detection of bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints. Arthritis Res Ther 2006, 8:R59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikkel Østergaard
    • 1
    Email author
  • Uffe M. DØhn
  • Bo J. Ejbjerg
  • Fiona M. McQueen
  1. 1.Departments of RheumatologyCopenhagen University Hospitals at Hvidovre and HerlevHvidovreDenmark

Personalised recommendations