Rheumatology Department, CHU Hôpital Sud, Grenoble Teaching Hospital, Avenue de Kimberley, BP 338, 38434 Echirolles Cedex, France.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011 Jun;50(6):1137-47. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keq437. Epub 2011 Jan 28.
To evaluate the reproducibility of US and to compare its efficacy with that of MRI and conventional radiography (CR) for the detection of bone erosion in RA patients.
A systematic literature search was performed in the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases up to August 2009. Trials evaluating the reproducibility of US for bone erosion detection or comparing the number of erosions detected by the three imaging methods at patient and/or joint level were included. This last parameter was assessed using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI with the Mantel-Haenszel method (OR < 1 favours US). We explored the heterogeneity between the studies by subgroup analysis.
Twenty-one studies including 913 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of US for erosion detection was good. US and MRI efficacies were comparable at both joint (OR = 1.19, P = 0.45; seven studies, 869 joints) and patient (OR = 1.76, P = 0.22; nine studies, 338 patients) levels. US detected significantly more erosion than CR at both joint (OR = 0.30, P < 0.00001; 4047 joints studied) and patient (OR = 0.31, P < 0.00001; 592 studied patients) levels. The number of patients to screen in order to detect an additional patient with an erosion in comparison with CR was 4, 95% CI (2.4, 5.9).
US is more effective for erosion detection than CR and has a comparable efficacy to MRI with good reproducibility.
评估超声检查的可重复性,并比较其与 MRI 和传统放射学(CR)在 RA 患者骨侵蚀检测中的效果。
系统检索 Medline、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库,检索时间截至 2009 年 8 月。纳入评估超声检查骨侵蚀检测可重复性或比较三种成像方法在患者和/或关节水平检测到的侵蚀数量的试验。采用 Mantel-Haenszel 法计算比值比(OR)及其 95%可信区间(OR<1 表示超声检查有利)来评估该参数。我们通过亚组分析来探讨研究间的异质性。
这项荟萃分析纳入了 21 项研究共 913 例患者。超声检查对侵蚀检测的观察者内和观察者间可重复性较好。超声和 MRI 在关节(OR=1.19,P=0.45;7 项研究,869 个关节)和患者(OR=1.76,P=0.22;9 项研究,338 例患者)水平上的效果相当。与 CR 相比,超声在关节(OR=0.30,P<0.00001;研究 4047 个关节)和患者(OR=0.31,P<0.00001;研究 592 例患者)水平上检测到的侵蚀数量更多。与 CR 相比,为了检测到额外的一位有侵蚀的患者,需要筛查的患者数量为 4,95%可信区间(2.4,5.9)。
与 CR 相比,超声检查在检测侵蚀方面更有效,与 MRI 相比具有良好的可重复性,其效果相当。