Comparison of radiographic joint space width with magnetic resonance imaging cartilage morphometry: analysis of longitudinal data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative.
Comparison of radiographic joint space width with magnetic resonance imaging cartilage morphometry: analysis of longitudinal data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative.
复制标题
DOI:
10.1002/acr.20148
复制
发表时间:
2010-07
影响因子:
4.7
通讯作者:
Hunter, David J.
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Duryea, Jeffrey;Neumann, Gesa;Niu, Jingbo;Totterman, Saara;Tamez, Jose;Dabrowski, Christine;Le Graverand, Marie-Pierre Hellio;Luchi, Monica;Beals, Chan R.;Hunter, David J.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and radiography are established imaging modalities for the assessment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). The objective of our study is to compare the responsiveness of radiographic joint space width (JSW) to MRI derived measures of cartilage morphometry for OA progression in participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). This study examined the baseline and 12 month visits of a subset of 150 subjects from the OAI. Measurement of radiographic JSW was facilitated by the use of automated software that delineated the femoral and tibial margins of the joint. Measures of medial compartment minimum JSW and JSW at fixed locations were compared to cartilage morphometry measures derived from MRI. The results were stratified by Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) grade and by tibio-femoral anatomical angle. In order to examine the relative responsiveness of various techniques, we calculated the standardized response mean (SRM) between the two visits. The SRM value for radiographic JSW measured at the optimal location was −0.32 compared to −0.39 for the most responsive MRI measure. For a subgroup with KL = 2 or 3, the most responsive SRM values were −0.34 for radiographic JSW and −0.42 MRI. Our study demonstrates that new measures using a software analysis of digital knee radiographic images are comparable to MRI in detecting OA progression, and potentially superior when considering the cost effectiveness of the two imaging modalities.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子:
7
作者:
Duryea, J.;Neumann, G.;Lang, P.
通讯作者:
Lang, P.
影响因子:
27.4
作者:
Hunter, D. J.;Niu, J.;Beals, C. R.
通讯作者:
Beals, C. R.
影响因子:
19.7
作者:
PETERFY, CG;VANDIJKE, CF;GENANT, HK
通讯作者:
GENANT, HK
影响因子:
--
作者:
Kraus, VB;Vail, TP;McDaniel, G
通讯作者:
McDaniel, G
影响因子:
27.4
作者:
Le Graverand, M-P Hellio;Vignon, E. P.;Wyman, B.
通讯作者:
Wyman, B.