Erosive progression by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography and conventional radiography in rheumatoid arthritis
Authors' conclusion
A substantial proportion of patients with erosive progression are overlooked using CR only to monitor erosive progression.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (disease duration ≥5 years), March 2018 to October 2020310 in paired analyses
- Participants
- 359 patients
- Comparison
- High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) vs conventional radiography for erosive progression over 1 year
- Outcome
- Erosive progression
- Follow-up
- 1 year
Methodological detailsprospective
- Prospective
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Erosive progression (CR as reference)
| Test or model | Value | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|
| HR-pQCT | 40 events | 23.3% (95% CI: 9.9, 42.3%) | 88.2% (95% CI: 83.8, 91.7%) |
| CR | 30 events |
Value
HR-pQCT40 events
CR30 events
Sensitivity
HR-pQCT23.3% (95% CI: 9.9, 42.3%)
CR— not stated in the abstract
Specificity
HR-pQCT88.2% (95% CI: 83.8, 91.7%)
CR— not stated in the abstract
- Patients with progression on HR-pQCT not identified by CR
- 33
Further findings
- Patients identified with progression, CR alone vs CR plus HR-pQCT · 1 year — CR
- 10%
- Patients identified with progression, CR alone vs CR plus HR-pQCT: CR + HR-pQCT 20%
Original publication
Erosive progression by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography and conventional radiography in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). Published 15 May 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →