Advertisement

Quantitative assessment of experimentally induced arthritis in guinea pigs using microfocal radiography

  • J. C. Buckland-Wright
  • C. H. Cashin
  • N. S. Doherty
  • B. L. Jeffries
Part of the Inflammation: Mechanisms and Treatment book series (FTIN, volume 4)

Abstract

The assessment of joint damage in experimentally induced inflammatory arthritis has always been difficult and has usually involved a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, for example, (1) the measurement of joint diameter, (2) serial histological sections, and (3) radiography. The limitations of these methods are, first, joint diameter does not always reflect the damage in the joint; second, histology is time consuming and it is difficult to obtain an evaluation of joint damage in three dimensions; third, the resolution of the radiographs produced by clinical machines enables the alterations in arthritic joints to be described qualitatively and/or by simple mensural assessments such as scoring systems, cortical indices and densito-metric analyses.

Keywords

Joint Damage Post Challenge Cortical Index Arthritic Control Serial Histological Section 
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

  1. 1.
    Ely, R. V. (1972). X-ray microscopy. In Weissberger, A. and Rossiter, B. W. (eds.) Physical Methods of Chemistry, Part IIIA, pp. 715–779. (New York: Wiley)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buckland-Wright, J. C. (1976). The microfocal X-ray unit and its application to bio-medical research. Experientia, 32, 1613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buckland-Wright, J. C. (1977). The microfocal X-ray unit: a demonstration of its potential. Med. Biol. Mus., 27, 163Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilcoxon, F. and Wilcox, R. A. (1964). Some Rapid Approximate Statistical Procedures. (Pearl River: Lederle Laboratories)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arrigoni-Martelli, E., Bramm, E. and Binderup, L. (1977). Immunopharmacological investigations on sulphydryl compounds: Comparative study of D-penicillamine, 5-mercaptopyridoxine and 4-mercaptopropionylglycine. Riv. Farmacol. Ter., 8, 335Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cunningham, F. M., Ford-Hutchinson, A. W., Oliver, A. M., Smith, M. J. H. and Walker, J. R. (1978). The effects of D-peniciilamine and levamisole on leucocyte Chemotaxis in the rat. Bri. J. Pharmacol., 63,119Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dieppe, P. A., Willoughby, D. A., Huskisson, E. C. and Arrigoni-Martelli, E. (1976). Pertussis vaccine pleurisy: a model of delayed hypersensitivity. Agents Actions, 6, 618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© MTP Press Limited 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. C. Buckland-Wright
    • 1
  • C. H. Cashin
    • 1
  • N. S. Doherty
    • 1
  • B. L. Jeffries
    • 1
  1. 1.UK

Personalised recommendations