van der Heijde Désirée, Landewé Robert, Boonen Annelies, Einstein Steve, Herborn Gertraud, Rau Rolf, Wassenberg Siegfried, Weissman Barbara N, Winalski Carl S, Sharp John T
Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, Leiden 2300 RC, The Netherlands.
Arthritis Res Ther. 2007;9(4):R62. doi: 10.1186/ar2220.
The objective of the present study was to test the hypothesis that experts recognize repair of erosions and, if so, to determine which, if any, morphologic features permitted them to recognize the repair. We also tested whether scoring by a standard method detected repair. Seven experienced readers of radiographs in rheumatoid arthritis were presented with 64 sets of single joints-of-interest at two time points, randomized and blinded for the correct sequence. The readers assessed which joint was better, and recorded whether any of six specific features were seen. Two independent readers, experienced in scoring by the van der Heijde-modified Sharp method who were not on the expert panel, then scored the complete films that included the joint-of-interest. The panel agreed very well on which of two joints was better, and, even though they did not know the true sequence, the panel accurately assigned a sequence slightly better than chance alone (58%) but worse than their agreement on which image was 'better or worse' (78%). The readers therefore indirectly assigned repair by choosing the second film as the best. Putative repair features were seen in cases of both repair and progression, and were not discriminatory. Similar results were obtained when the experts were presented with the entire hand or foot containing the joint-of-interest. In the third repair exercise, two independent readers who scored whole hands and feet using a standard method found a mean negative score in 22/60 joints-of-interest. All 22 joints were also scored as repair by the panel. Repair was detected reliably by a majority of the panel on viewing paired images based on a better/worse decision and assigning sequence in a set of images that were blinded for sequence by an independent project manager. In this test set of images, repair was manifested by a reduction in the size of erosion in many cases. Size was one feature that aided the experts to detect repair but cannot be the only one; the experts had to find other features to determine whether a smaller erosion was the first in a sequence of radiographs in a patient with progressive damage or was the second film in a patient exhibiting repair. The change in size of erosion was also picked up by independent readers applying the van der Heijde-modified Sharp scoring method and was reflected in their scores.
专家能够识别糜烂的修复情况,若能识别,则确定哪些形态学特征(若有)使他们能够识别修复。我们还测试了采用标准方法评分是否能检测到修复。向7位有经验的类风湿关节炎X线片阅片者展示了64组感兴趣的单关节在两个时间点的影像,随机排列且对正确顺序进行了盲法处理。阅片者评估哪个关节状况更好,并记录是否观察到六种特定特征中的任何一种。然后,两位熟悉采用范德海伊德改良夏普方法评分且未在专家小组中的独立阅片者,对包含感兴趣关节的完整影像进行评分。专家小组对两个关节中哪个状况更好的判断非常一致,并且,尽管他们不知道真实顺序,但专家小组准确地确定了一个顺序,略高于随机猜测的概率(58%),但低于他们对哪个影像“更好或更差”的一致判断(78%)。因此,阅片者通过选择第二张影像为最佳间接确定了修复情况。在修复和进展的病例中均观察到了假定的修复特征,且这些特征并无鉴别意义。当向专家展示包含感兴趣关节的整个手部或足部影像时,也得到了类似结果。在第三次修复评估中,两位采用标准方法对整个手部和足部进行评分的独立阅片者在60个感兴趣的关节中发现22个关节的平均评分为负值。专家小组也将这22个关节均评为修复。在由独立项目经理对影像顺序进行盲法处理的一组影像中,大多数专家小组通过基于更好/更差的判断查看配对影像并确定顺序,可靠地检测到了修复。在这组测试影像中,修复在许多情况下表现为糜烂大小的减小。大小是帮助专家检测修复的一个特征,但不可能是唯一特征;专家们必须找到其他特征来确定较小的糜烂是进行性损伤患者一系列X线片中的第一张,还是显示修复的患者的第二张影像。独立阅片者采用范德海伊德改良夏普评分方法也发现了糜烂大小的变化,并反映在他们的评分中。