Ultrasound assessment of hands and feet for synovitis at time of first clinical visit markedly reduces time to diagnosis in routine care

E-learning and practical performance in musculoskeletal ultrasound: a multicentre randomized study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of pre-course e-learning on residents' practical performance in musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS).

METHODS

This was a multicentre, randomized controlled study following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. Residents with no or little MSUS experience were randomized to either an e-learning group or a traditional group. One week before a 2-day face-to-face MSUS course, the e-learning group received access to an interactive platform consisting of online lectures, assignments, and practical instruction videos aligned with the content of the course. The traditional group only received standard pre-course information (program, venue, and time). All participants performed a pre- and post-course practical MSUS examination and were assessed by two individual raters, blinded to the group allocation, using the validated Objective Structured Assessment of Ultrasound Skills (OSAUS) tool.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight participants completed the study. There were no statistically significant differences in the pre- or post-course practical MSUS performance between the e-learning group and the traditional group; the mean pre-course OSAUS score (s.d.) in the -learning group was 5.4 (3.7) compared with 5.2 (2.4) in the traditional group (P = 0.8), whereas the post-course OSAUS score in the e-learning group was 11.1 (2.8) compared with 10.9 (2.4) in the traditional group (P = 0.8). There was a significant difference between the mean pre- and post-course scores (5.74 points, P < 0.001). The OSAUS assessment tool demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (intra-class correlation = 0.84).

CONCLUSION

We found no significant impact of pre-course e-learning on novices' acquisition of practical MSUS skills. Hands-on training is of the utmost importance and improves MSUS performance significantly. The OSAUS assessment tool is an applicable tool with high interrater reliability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT04959162.

Ultrasound joint examination by an automated system versus by a rheumatologist: from a patient perspective

Background

The Arthritis Ultrasound Robot (ARTHUR) is an automated system for ultrasound scanning of the joints of both hands and wrists, with subsequent disease activity scoring using artificial intelligence. The objective was to describe the patient’s perspective of being examined by ARTHUR, compared to an ultrasound examination by a rheumatologist. Further, to register any safety issues with the use of ARTHUR.

Methods

Twenty-five patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had both hands and wrists examined by ultrasound, first by a rheumatologist and subsequently by ARTHUR. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were obtained after the examination by the rheumatologist and by ARTHUR. PROs regarding pain, discomfort and overall experience were collected, including willingness to be examined again by ARTHUR as part of future clinical follow-up. All ARTHUR examinations were observed for safety issues.

Results

There was no difference in pain or discomfort between the examination by a rheumatologist and by ARTHUR (p = 0.29 and p = 0.20, respectively). The overall experience of ARTHUR was described as very good or good by 92% (n = 23), with no difference compared to the examination by the rheumatologist (p = 0.50). All (n = 25) patients were willing to be examined by ARTHUR again, and 92% (n = 23) would accept ARTHUR as a regular part of their RA clinical follow up. No safety issues were registered.

Conclusions

Joint ultrasound examination by ARTHUR was safe and well-received, with no difference in PRO components compared to ultrasound examination by a rheumatologist. Fully automated systems for RA disease activity assessment could be important in future strategies for managing RA patients.

Trial registration: The study was evaluated by the regional ethics committee (ID: S-20200145), which ruled it was not a clinical trial necessary for their approval. It was a quality assessment project, as there was no intervention to the patient. The study was hereafter submitted and registered to Odense University Hospital, Region of Southern Denmark as a quality assessment project and approved (ID: 20/55294).