Imaging in gout - What can we learn from MRI, CT, DECT and US?
© BioMed Central Ltd 2011
Published: 4 November 2011
There are many exciting new applications for advanced imaging in gout. These modalities employ multiplanar imaging and allow computerized three-dimensional rendering of bone and joints (including tophi) and have the advantage of electronic data storage for later retrieval. High-resolution computed tomography has been particularly helpful in exploring the pathology of gout by investigating the relationship between bone erosions and tophi. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography can image the inflammatory nature of gouty arthropathy, revealing synovial and soft tissue inflammation, and can provide information about the composition and vascularity of tophi. Dual-energy computerized tomography is a new modality that is able to identify tophi by their chemical composition and reveal even small occult tophaceous deposits. All modalities are being investigated for their potential roles in diagnosis and could have important clinical applications in the patient for whom aspiration of monosodium urate crystals from the joint is not possible. Imaging can also provide outcome measures, such as change in tophus volume, for monitoring the response to urate-lowering therapy and this is an important application in the clinical trial setting.
In recent years, advanced imaging techniques, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) using high-resolution multislice scanners, and ultrasonography (US), have led to new insights into the pathology of many forms of inflammatory arthritis . Scoring systems have been developed to quantify joint inflammation and destruction by using imaging and these are now in routine use in clinical trials to provide sensitive measures of drug efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) [4, 5]. In gout, the applications of advanced imaging are only now starting to be explored and are of particular relevance to the clinician assessing the impact of urate-lowering therapies . These applications include (a) imaging to investigate joint pathology in gout, (b) imaging to assist in the diagnosis of gout, and (c) monitoring of joint inflammation and damage, especially in response to therapy. This review presents a critical appraisal of the current literature pertaining to advanced imaging in gout and provides specific discussion of these areas related to each modality.
1. Joint pathology in gout
Before the advent of advanced imaging, an understanding of the pathology of gout was based primarily on light microscope examination of tophi and periarticular bone, supplemented by XR to define the radiographic morphology and distribution of erosions . This approach was biased toward investigating severe erosive gouty arthropathy, and specimens obtained for histopathology were usually derived from amputated digits or limbs, where chronically discharging tophi were often secondarily infected . By contrast, advanced imaging techniques open a window into the pathology of gout at any stage of the disease process, including at presentation and in early disease, when XRs are characteristically normal and histopathological specimens are unavailable.
Computed tomography reveals tophi adjacent to erosions
The magnetic resonance imaging view of tophi
Ultrasound reveals tophi and urate crystals
Erosions and bone marrow edema
Bone erosions in gout can be detected by MRI or US and may contain enhancing synovium as has been described in RA . MRI bone marrow edema also occurs in gout and was described by Yu and colleagues , in 3 of their 5 patients, adjacent to intraosseous tophi. Our own recent study of the MRI features of gout in 47 patients showed bone marrow edema to be present in 36% of those with uncomplicated gout (when it was often mild) but to be almost universal in those with gout complicated by osteomyelitis (when it was usually florid) . In RA, MRI bone marrow edema is related to inflammatory osteitis [5, 6]; in osteoarthritis, it is thought to indicate fibrosis and necrosis within subcortical bone . In gout, the pathological correlate of MRI bone marrow edema remains unknown, and further studies are required to elucidate this.
2. Diagnosing gout by using advanced imaging
A diagnosis of gout currently rests on a demonstration of MSU crystals in synovial fluid or joint tissue or a typical clinical picture that might include acute joint swelling of abrupt onset and remission within 2 weeks, the occurrence of podagra, a raised serum urate, and, in some patients, the presence of tophi. According to 2006 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) evidence-based recommendations , 'radiographs have little role in diagnosis, though in late or severe gout radiographic changes of asymmetrical swelling and subcortical cysts without erosion may be useful to differentiate chronic gout from other joint conditions'. The contribution of advanced imaging would be to assist the diagnosis of gout at an earlier phase by revealing acute joint inflammation, bone erosion, or tophi or a combination of these. Ideally, such imaging would identify certain specific features that would confirm a diagnosis of gout without the necessity for joint aspiration. Most of the advanced imaging modalities take us some way down this path but do not deliver ultimate certainty of diagnosis. No study comparing the diagnostic accuracy of any of these techniques with the current clinical gold standard outlined above has yet been done.
Magnetic resonance imaging
In clinical practice, MRI scans have been reported as useful in diagnosing gout in unusual settings. As reported by Nygaard and colleagues , an epidural abscess was suspected clinically in a patient with fever and low back pain, but the MRI revealed a large tophus (confirmed on aspirate) associated with vertebral destruction. In a similar vein, Gardner and McQueen  reported tophaceous gout of the symphysis pubis (confirmed on aspirate), in which the presentation had suggested infection or malignancy. MRI is an effective tomographic modality to image these tophaceous masses, which may not be detected clinically if deep below the skin surface. Their presence strongly suggests a diagnosis of gout, but aspirate confirmation is usually required as the differential diagnosis includes infection or other space-occupying lesions.
Similarly, the US detection of tophi could be helpful in diagnosing gout, especially when these lesions are not detectable clinically. Perez-Ruiz and colleagues , in their study of 25 patients with crystal-proven gout, found many presumed tophi at 'hidden' sites such as under the collateral ligaments of the knee. US-guided aspiration of 12 nodules suspected to be tophi was performed; in 10 of these, MSU crystals were obtained, helping to confirm validity. A larger group of 50 nodules was detected by imaging in 22 patients; of these nodules, 37 were detected by both MRI and US, 46 were detected by US, and 41 by MRI. Thus, presumably, some false positives and false negatives were present for each modality, but defining these presents a problem. Benson and colleagues  have suggested that the sonographic appearances of gouty tophi may vary according to developmental state, and these features could mimic those of rheumatoid nodules, which can also evolve over time. Therefore, the finding of a nodule on US, MRI, or CT, while suggestive of tophus in the right clinical setting, is not utterly diagnostic. Finding bone erosions may also have diagnostic relevance, and US has been shown to be more sensitive than plain XR for the detection of small erosions. In one study of 78 gouty first metatarsophalangeal joints, 52 (67%) revealed US erosion compared with only 22 (28%) where XR erosions were scored . This recalls similar findings in RA, in which multiplanar imaging techniques, including US, MRI, and CT, have all been shown to be superior to two-dimensional XR for erosion detection . However, the rate of US false positives is often difficult to determine from the published literature; in any case, the imaging appearance of erosive, inflammatory arthropathy is common to many conditions, including RA and PsA as well as gout . The prospect that key imaging features such as the double-contour sign could confirm a diagnosis of gout remains tantalizing. Lai and Chiu  recently published an ultrasound study of large joints (mainly knees and ankles) in 34 patients with gout and 46 patients with non-gouty arthritis and compared sonographic findings with MSU crystal aspiration. The authors reported the double-contour sign to have a sensitivity of 36.8% and a specificity of 97.3% for the diagnosis of gout. However, Carter and colleagues  were not able to find US evidence of the double-contour sign in any of their 'index joints' where clinical gout attacks had occurred, and MRI erosions were present in more than half.
Computed tomography scanning
Helical multislice CT scanning has a potential role in the diagnosis of gout, largely because of the very-highresolution 3D images that may be obtained depicting tophi  (Figure 2). These tend to be higher-definition than MRI images as the slice thickness (which for CT can be as low as 0.5 mm) is considerably thinner than that of MRI (which is typically 2.5 to 4 mm) and there is no interslice gap (in fact, the slices can be reconstructed overlapping for 3D reformatting purposes). The density of tophi is usually 160 to 170 Hounsfield units and this is significantly different from that of soft tissues and bone . Helical CT scanning also has the advantage of allowing imaging of larger regions than most MRI scans, so that the pattern of joint involvement can be depicted. In gout, this is typically asymmetrical, favoring the metatarsophalangeal, interphalangeal, and midtarsal joints in the feet and the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints in the hands. Clearly, CT would have no role in the diagnosis of acute gout, prior to the development of bone erosions or tophi, as it does not provide imaging of synovitis, tenosynovitis, or osteitis.
Dual-energy computed tomography
3. Monitoring disease activity and damage - response to therapy
Plain XR provides a very blunt imaging instrument with which to try to track the progress of joint damage in gout and its response to therapy. McCarthy and colleagues  studied a group of 39 patients for 10 years and found no correlation between XR changes and serum urate concentration, and this suggests that XR may not be sufficiently sensitive to monitor change in bony damage over this time frame. More recently, a specific gout radiographic scoring method has been developed and validated and may improve sensitivity to change in longitudinal studies . With the development of powerful and often costly urate-lowering therapies, the focus has shifted to the possibility that advanced imaging could be useful in this context, providing sensitivity to change over a shorter timeframe that would be clinically relevant. Of these modalities, MRI and CT have the facility to allow storage of standardized digital images and so are particularly suitable for use in longitudinal studies.
Perez-Ruiz and colleagues  examined the US measurement of tophi in 25 patients with gout, including change in tophus size and its association with serum urate concentrations over the course of 12 months. The authors reported excellent intraobserver (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.98 for volume) and good interobserver reliability (ICCs of 0.83 for maximal diameter and 0.71 for minimal diameter). They also provided data comparing US and MRI diameters of the same lesions. Interestingly, these measurements were similar but not identical, and the R 2 value for the correlation was 0.65. This suggests that definition of the outer limit of the tophus may vary according to how it is imaged. MRI diameters in this study were generally larger than US diameters, and this could be related to better imaging (by MRI) of the soft tissue component of the tophus, which may contain regions of inflammation and hypervascularity. In 14 patients, urate-lowering therapy (with allopurinol and later benzbromarone in some) was commenced, and repeat US examination was performed at 12 months. When a reduction greater than the smallest detectable difference (SDD) was taken as indicating real change, 20 out of 38 tophi were reduced in maximal diameter at the endpoint. These patients had a significantly lower average serum urate than the group in which tophus diameter did not change. To look at this another way, in patients with an average serum urate of less than 6 mg/dL, 19 out of 28 tophi (68%) showed reduction compared with 1 out of 10 tophi (10%) in patients with urate of greater than 6 mg/dL. The authors concluded that US fulfills the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT) filter [35, 36] as a feasible, valid, and discriminative measure for evaluating changes in tophus size in gout patients on urate-lowering therapy.
Schumacher and colleagues  performed a multi-center study assessing the intra- and inter-reader reproducibilities of tophus volume assessment using MRI scanning. Volume measurements were made in 17 tophi from 14 subjects. These lesions ranged from very large at the elbow (mean volume of 14.1 cm3) to smaller lesions at the foot/ankle and hand/wrist (6.9 and 5.3 cm3, respectively). Reproducibility in this study was expressed as the absolute percentage difference between volume readings taken by one observer twice (intra-reader) or two observers (inter-reader). Oddly, intra-reader reproducibility in this study was slightly worse (17.2% difference between volume readings) than inter-reader reproducibility (14.2% difference between readers). These differences translated into small actual changes in volume (0.07 to 2.2 cm3). The authors felt that MRI scans without gadolinium contrast were optimal for assessing tophus volume as post-contrast scans were associated with artifact that complicated measurement. It is difficult to extrapolate from these findings whether MRI scanning would be a suitable tool for assessment of change in tophus volume in the therapeutic setting, and further studies are required.
CT has been evaluated for assessment of tophus size by our own group . Forty-seven hand tophi were analyzed from 20 patients with gout, and measurements were made with a 16-slice scanner with thin (0.8 mm) slices. Two observers separately determined tophus volume with the 3D software available. Reliability was very high between and within observers (ICCs of 0.989 and 1.0, respectively). Physical measurement of subcutaneous tophi was also included in this study and, interestingly, compared well with CT in terms of reliability. For tophi that were identified by both physical measurement and CT (89%), there was good correlation between physical measurement of the longest diameter and CT measurement of volume (r = 0.91), providing further validation of CT as a measurement instrument. Currently, there are no published studies evaluating change in CT tophus volume in patients on urate-lowering therapy.
Abufayyah and colleagues  recently reported a proof-of-concept study investigating the use of DECT in monitoring reduction of tophus volume in 12 patients on urate-lowering therapy. Scans were performed of four peripheral joint areas - elbows, wrists/hands, knees, and ankles/feet - at baseline and were repeated 11 to 29 months later. Ten patients improved on urate-lowering therapy, with a reduction in serum urate levels and lower frequency of gout attacks. Tophus volume was reduced in all of these responders; the median reduction was 64% (from 322 to 107 cm3). By contrast, the two non-responders showed a 36% increase in total tophus volume. The authors concluded that DECT scanning had potential as a sensitive, quantitative imaging tool for assessing tophus (and therefore urate) volume changes in patients with tophaceous gout.
Using advanced imaging to monitor responses to therapy in arthritic conditions has led to the development of measuring instruments by OMERACT-led international working parties in RA and PsA [4, 39]. The MRI scoring systems - Rheumatoid Arthritis MRI Score (RAMRIS) and Psoriatic Arthritis MRI Score (PsAMRIS) - are now in use in clinical trials and similar systems are being evolved for studies in US . The utility of these instruments lies in their ability to reproducibly measure joint inflammation and damage, incorporating characteristic pathological features including bone erosion, bone oedema and synovitis for RA, with additions now available for scoring tenosynovitis and cartilage [41, 42]. For PsA, additional features such as bone proliferation and periarticular inflammation have been included in PsAMRIS to capture relevant pathology . Clearly, measuring tophus volume alone in gout is incomplete as successful therapy also needs to be associated with a reduction in chronic synovitis (or acute flares) and slowing the progression of bone erosion. Thus, an all-inclusive measurement tool is needed for comprehensive assessment of gouty arthropathy and perhaps a Gouty Arthritis MRI Score or "GAMRIS" is called for. Alternatively an US or CT score could be devised for gout, keeping in mind that the different modalities have different strengths and weaknesses. For example, MRI has the advantage of revealing all components (inflammation, damage, and tophi) but probably has lower resolution and reproducibility for tophus measurement than CT scanning, whereas US can reveal all components except bone edema (and some deep tissue tophi), appears to have fair reproducibility for tophus measurement, but tends to be operator-dependent.
In summary, advanced imaging techniques are currently poised to fulfill their potential in gout. This review has summarized the great advances that have already occurred in terms of revealing pathological features in this condition. The 3D rendering of tophi is allowing computation of volume from CT and MRI, and the development of DECT means that tophaceous deposits can now be recognized not just by their morphology and tissue density characteristics but by their chemical composition. US allows a 'hands on' approach for the practicing clinician to assess tophi, erosions, and synovitis and may be particularly applicable in the longitudinal setting. It can also be used to guide aspiration of the joint or tophus to obtain material for crystal examination. Advances are being made in defining the reproducibility of imaging measurements, and ultimately the goal will be for the practicing clinician to employ these tools in the assessment of the activity and severity of gout and to determine clinically meaningful responses to therapy.
This article is part of the series Advances in the imaging of rheumatic diseases, edited by Mikkel Østergaard. Other articles in this series can be found at http://arthritis-research.com/series/imaging
dual-energy computed tomography
intraclass correlation coefficient
magnetic resonance imaging
Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials
Psoriatic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score
- Barthelemy CR, Nakayama DA, Carrera GF, Lightfoot RW, Wortmann RL: Gouty arthritis: a prospective radiographic evaluation of sixty patients. Skeletal Radiol. 1984, 11: 1-8. 10.1007/BF00361124.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dalbeth N, Clark B, McQueen F, Doyle A, Taylor W: Validation of a radiographic damage index in chronic gout. Arthritis Rheum. 2007, 57: 1067-1073. 10.1002/art.22891.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dalbeth N, McQueen FM: Use of imaging to evaluate gout and other crystal deposition disorders. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2009, 21: 124-131. 10.1097/BOR.0b013e3283257b6c.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Østergaard M, Peterfy C, Conaghan P, McQueen F, Bird P, Ejbjerg B, Shnier R, O'Connor P, Klarlund M, Emery P, Genant H, Lassere M, Edmonds J: OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Core set of MRI acquisitions, joint pathology definitions, and the OMERACT RA-MRI scoring system. J Rheumatol. 2003, 30: 1385-1386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- McQueen F, Lassere M, Duer-Jensen A, Wiell C, Conaghan PG, Gandjbakhch F, Hermann KG, Bird P, Bøyesen P, Peterfy C, Ejbjerg B, Haavardsholm EA, Coates L, Ostergaard M: Testing an OMERACT MRI scoring system for peripheral psoriatic arthritis in cross-sectional and longitudinal settings. J Rheumatol. 2009, 36: 1811-1815. 10.3899/jrheum.090351.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dalbeth N, Schauer C, Macdonald P, Perez-Ruiz F, Schumacher HR, Hamburger S, Choi HK, McQueen FM, Doyle A, Taylor WJ: Methods of tophus assessment in clinical trials of chronic gout: a systematic literature review and pictorial reference guide. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011, 70: 597-604. 10.1136/ard.2010.139899.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Resnick D: Crystal-induced arthropathy. Gout and pseudogout. JAMA. 1979, 242: 2440-2442. 10.1001/jama.242.22.2440.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Guerra J, Resnick D: Arthritides affecting the foot: radiographic-pathological correlation. Foot Ankle. 1982, 2: 325-331.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yu JS, Chung C, Recht M, Dailiana T, Jurdi R: MR imaging of tophaceous gout. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997, 168: 523-527.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gentili A: The advanced imaging of gouty tophi. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2006, 8: 231-235. 10.1007/s11926-996-0030-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Palmer DG, Hogg N, Denholm I, Allen CA, Highton J, Hessian PA: Comparison of phenotype expression by mononuclear phagocytes within subcutaneous gouty tophi and rheumatoid nodules. Rheumatol Int. 1987, 7: 187-193. 10.1007/BF00541376.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dalbeth N, Pool B, Gamble GD, Smith T, Callon KE, McQueen FM, Cornish J: Cellular characterization of the gouty tophus: a quantitative analysis. Arthritis Rheum. 2010, 62: 1549-1556.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dalbeth N, Smith T, Nicolson B, Clark B, Callon K, Naot D, Haskard DO, McQueen FM, Reid IR, Cornish J: Enhanced osteoclastogenesis in patients with tophaceous gout: urate crystals promote osteoclast development through interactions with stromal cells. Arthritis Rheum. 2008, 58: 1854-1865. 10.1002/art.23488.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Popp JD, Bidgood WD, Edwards NL: Magnetic resonance imaging of tophaceous gout in the hands and wrists. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1996, 25: 282-289. 10.1016/S0049-0172(96)80038-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schueller-Weidekamm C, Schueller G, Aringer M, Weber M, Kainberger F: Impact of sonography in gouty arthritis: comparison with conventional radiography, clinical examination, and laboratory findings. Eur J Radiol. 2007, 62: 437-443. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.12.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- de Ávila Fernandes E, Kubota ES, Sandim GB, Mitraud SA, Ferrari AJ, Fernandes AR: Ultrasound features of tophi in chronic tophaceous gout. Skeletal Radiol. 2011, 40: 309-315. 10.1007/s00256-010-1008-z.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thiele RG, Schlesinger N: Diagnosis of gout by ultrasound. Rheumatology. 2007, 46: 1116-1121. 10.1093/rheumatology/kem058.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Peterfy CG: MRI of the wrist in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004, 63: 473-477. 10.1136/ard.2003.014837.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Poh YJ, Dalbeth N, Doyle A, McQueen FM: Magnetic resonance imaging bone edema is not a major feature of gout unless there is concomitant osteomyelitis: 10-year findings from a high-prevalence population. J Rheumatol. 2011,Google Scholar
- Zhang W, Doherty M, Pascual E, Bardin T, Barskova V, Conaghan P, Gerster J, Jacobs J, Leeb B, Lioté F, McCarthy G, Netter P, Nuki G, Perez-Ruiz F, Pignone A, Pimentão J, Punzi L, Roddy E, Uhlig T, Zimmermann-Gòrska I, EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics: EULAR evidence based recommendations for gout. Part I: Diagnosis. Report of a task force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis. 2006, 65: 1301-1311. 10.1136/ard.2006.055251.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nygaard HB, Shenoi S, Shukla S: Lower back pain caused by tophaceous gout of the spine. Neurology. 2009, 73: 404-10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181b04cb1.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gardner H, McQueen F: Tophaceous gout of the pubic symphysis: an unusual cause of groin pain. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004, 63: 767-768. 10.1136/ard.2003.017988.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Perez-Ruiz F, Martin I, Canteli B: Ultrasonographic measurement of tophi as an outcome measure for chronic gout. J Rheumatol. 2007, 34: 1888-1893.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Benson CH, Gibson JY, Harisdangkul V: Ultrasound diagnosis of tophaceous and rheumatoid nodules. Arthritis Rheum. 1983, 26: 696-10.1002/art.1780260529.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Østergaard M, Ejbjerg B, Szkudlarek M: Imaging in early rheumatoid arthritis: roles of magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, conventional radiography and computed tomography. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005, 19: 91-116. 10.1016/j.berh.2004.08.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lai K, Chiu Y: Role of ultrasonography in diagnosing gouty arthritis. Journal of Medical Ultrasound. 2011, 19: 7-13. 10.1016/j.jmu.2011.01.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Carter JD, Kedar RP, Anderson SR, Osorio AH, Albritton NL, Gnanashanmugam S, Valeriano J, Vasey FB, Ricca LR: An analysis of MRI and ultrasound imaging in patients with gout who have normal plain radiographs. Rheumatology. 2009, 48: 1442-1446. 10.1093/rheumatology/kep278.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dalbeth N, Clark B, Gregory K, Gamble GD, Doyle A, McQueen FM: Computed tomography measurement of tophus volume: comparison with physical measurement. Arthritis Rheum. 2007, 57: 461-465. 10.1002/art.22612.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gerster JC, Landry M, Dufresne L, Meuwly JY: Imaging of tophaceous gout: computed tomography provides specific images compared with magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002, 61: 52-54. 10.1136/ard.61.1.52.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Reimann AJ, Rinck D, Birinci-Aydogan A, Scheuering M, Burgstahler C, Schroeder S, Brodoefel H, Tsiflikas I, Herberts T, Flohr T, Claussen CD, Kopp AF, Heuschmid M: Dual-source computed tomography: advances of improved temporal resolution in coronary plaque imaging. Invest Radiol. 2007, 42: 196-203. 10.1097/01.rli.0000254409.79193.96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Graser A, Johnson TR, Bader M, Staehler M, Haseke N, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Stief CG, Becker CR: Dual energy CT characterization of urinary calculi: initial in vitro and clinical experience. Invest Radiol. 2008, 43: 112-119. 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318157a144.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Choi HK, Al-Arfaj AM, Eftekhari A, Munk PL, Shojania K, Reid G, Nicolaou S: Dual energy computed tomography in tophaceous gout. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009, 68: 1609-1612. 10.1136/ard.2008.099713.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nicolaou S, Yong-Hing CJ, Galea-Soler S, Hou DJ, Louis L, Munk P: Dual-energy CT as a potential new diagnostic tool in the management of gout in the acute setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010, 194: 1072-1078. 10.2214/AJR.09.2428.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McCarthy GM, Barthelemy CR, Veum JA, Wortmann RL: Influence of antihyperuricemic therapy on the clinical and radiographic progression of gout. Arthritis Rheum. 1991, 34: 1489-1494.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boers M, Brooks P, Strand CV, Tugwell P: The OMERACT filter for outcome measures in rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 1998, 25: 198-199.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schumacher HR, Taylor W, Edwards L, Grainger R, Schlesinger N, Dalbeth N, Sivera F, Singh J, Evans R, Waltrip RW, Diaz-Torne C, MacDonald P, McQueen F, Perez-Ruiz F: Outcome domains for studies of acute and chronic gout. J Rheumatol. 2009, 36: 2342-2345. 10.3899/jrheum.090370.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schumacher HR, Becker MA, Edwards NL, Palmer WE, MacDonald PA, Palo W, Joseph-Ridge N: Magnetic resonance imaging in the quantitative assessment of gouty tophi. Int J Clin Pract. 2006, 60: 408-414. 10.1111/j.1368-5031.2006.00853.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Abufayyah M, Nicolaou S, Eftekhari A, Reid G, Shojania K, Co S, Choi HK: Quantitative documentation of tophus volume change using dual energy computed tomography scans. Arthritis Rheum. 2010, 62: S900-S901.Google Scholar
- Ostergaard M, McQueen F, Wiell C, Bird P, Bøyesen P, Ejbjerg B, Peterfy C, Gandjbakhch F, Duer-Jensen A, Coates L, Haavardsholm EA, Hermann KG, Lassere M, O'Connor P, Emery P, Genant H, Conaghan PG: The OMERACT psoriatic arthritis magnetic resonance imaging scoring system (PsAMRIS): definitions of key pathologies, suggested MRI sequences, and preliminary scoring system for PsA Hands. J Rheumatol. 2009, 36: 1816-1824. 10.3899/jrheum.090352.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- D'Agostino MA, Conaghan PG, Naredo E, Aegerter P, Iagnocco A, Freeston JE, Filippucci E, Moller I, Pineda C, Joshua F, Backhaus M, Keen HI, Kaeley G, Ziswiler HR, Schmidt WA, Balint PV, Bruyn GA, Jousse-Joulin S, Kane D, Moller I, Szkudlarek M, Terslev L, Wakefield RJ: The OMERACT ultrasound task force -- Advances and priorities. J Rheumatol. 2009, 36: 1829-1832. 10.3899/jrheum.090354.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Haavardsholm EA, Østergaard M, Ejbjerg BJ, Kvan NP, Kvien TK: Introduction of a novel magnetic resonance imaging tenosynovitis score for rheumatoid arthritis: reliability in a multireader longitudinal study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007, 66: 1216-1220. 10.1136/ard.2006.068361.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McQueen F, Clarke A, McHaffie A, Reeves Q, Williams M, Robinson E, Dong J, Chand A, Mulders D, Dalbeth N: Assessment of cartilage loss at the wrist in rheumatoid arthritis using a new MRI scoring system. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010, 69: 1971-1975. 10.1136/ard.2009.127324.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar