Key result
Ultrasound and MRI provide complementary information and have distinct strengths and weaknesses as diagnostic, prognostic, and monitoring tools for rheumatoid arthritis.
Why the study?
How does ultrasound compare to magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic, prognostic, and monitoring tool in rheumatoid arthritis?
How does ultrasound compare to magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic, prognostic, and monitoring tool in rheumatoid arthritis?
This review highlights the complementary roles of ultrasound and MRI in evaluating inflammatory and structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis.
May guide selective imaging choices in RA; leaves open standardized protocols for routine prognostic use.
As modern imaging tools such as US and MRI become increasingly available, rheumatologists now have access to highly sensitive measures to assist in the evaluation of both the inflammatory and structural damage components underlying various arthritides over the disease duration. Both US and MRI have associated strengths and weaknesses, and at times they can provide complementary information. This review compares the performance of US vs MRI as diagnostic, prognostic and monitoring tools for RA, and to provide insights into which modality can provide the optimal information for a desired outcome in a given clinical trial or practice situation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tan et al. (2012) conducted a review in Rheumatoid arthritis. Ultrasound vs. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated. Ultrasound and MRI provide complementary information and have distinct strengths and weaknesses as diagnostic, prognostic, and monitoring tools for rheumatoid arthritis.