1
|
Mandl P, Ciechomska A, Terslev L, Baraliakos X, Conaghan PG, D'Agostino MA, Iagnocco A, van der Laken CJ, Ostergaard M, Naredo E. Implementation and role of modern musculoskeletal imaging in rheumatological practice in member countries of EULAR. RMD Open 2019; 5:e000950. [PMID: 31321076 PMCID: PMC6606074 DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000950] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2019] [Revised: 05/11/2019] [Accepted: 05/15/2019] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives To document the current training, implementation and role of modern musculoskeletal imaging techniques: ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and positron emission tomography, among rheumatologists in the member countries of the EULAR. Methods English-language questionnaires for each imaging modality developed by a EULAR task force were sent out to national and international scientific societies as well as imaging experts in the given modalities involved in research and/or training. The surveys were distributed via an online survey tool (SurveyMonkey). Simple descriptive and summary statistics were calculated from the responses. Results More than 90% of ultrasound (US) experts reported the availability of a US unit in their department. Suspicion of rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritides were the main clinical indications for performing US for diagnostic purposes. Suspicion of sacroiliitis and degenerative spine disease were the most common indications to perform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) for diagnostic purposes, while positron emission tomography was mainly performed to diagnose large vessel vasculitis and to investigate fever of unknown origin. The reported percentage of rheumatologists performing US was highly variable, ranging from more than 80% in 6% of countries to less than 10% in 15% of countries. The majority of experts (77%) reported that their national rheumatology societies organise musculoskeletal US courses, while courses in MRI or CT organised by the national rheumatology societies were less commonly reported (29% and 8%, respectively). Conclusions Rheumatologists in Europe utilise modern imaging techniques; however, access to the techniques and training offered is varied.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Mandl
- Department of Rheumatology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Anna Ciechomska
- Department of Rheumatology, Wishaw General Hospital, Wishaw, UK
| | - L Terslev
- Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital Glostrup, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Xenofon Baraliakos
- Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet Sankt Josefs-Krankenhaus, Herne, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany.,Rheumatology Department, Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany
| | - P G Conaghan
- Rheumatology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Maria Antonietta D'Agostino
- Rheumatology, Ambroise Paré Hospital, APHP, Université Versailles-Saint-Quentin en Yvelines, Boulogne-Billancourt, France
| | - Annamaria Iagnocco
- Scienze Cliniche e Biologiche, Università degli Studi di Torino, Rome, Italy
| | - Conny J van der Laken
- Department of Rheumatology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands
| | - Mikkel Ostergaard
- Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research, Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet Glostrup, Glostrup, Denmark
| | - E Naredo
- Department of Rheumatology, Joint and Bone Research Unit, Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz and Autónoma University, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mandl P, Baranauskaite A, Damjanov N, Hojnik M, Kurucz R, Nagy O, Nemec P, Niedermayer D, Perić P, Petranova T, Pille A, Rednic S, Vlad V, Zlnay M, Balint PV. Musculoskeletal ultrasonography in routine rheumatology practice: data from Central and Eastern European countries. Rheumatol Int 2016; 36:845-54. [PMID: 26923691 PMCID: PMC4873522 DOI: 10.1007/s00296-016-3442-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2015] [Accepted: 02/10/2016] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
The main aim was to gain structured insight into the use of musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) in routine rheumatology practices in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. In a cross-sectional, observational, international, multicenter survey, a questionnaire was sent to investigational sites in CEE countries. Data on all subsequent routine MSUS examinations, site characteristics, MSUS equipment, and investigators were collected over 6 months or up to 100 examinations per center. A total of 95 physicians at 44 sites in 9 countries provided information on a total of 2810 MSUS examinations. The most frequent diagnoses were rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (34.8 and 14.9 % of cases, respectively). Mean number of joints examined was 6.8. MSUS was most frequently performed for diagnostic purposes (58 %), particularly in patients with undifferentiated arthritis, suspected soft tissue disorders, or osteoarthritis (73.0–85.3 %). In RA patients, 56.3 % of examinations were conducted to monitor disease activity. Nearly all investigations (99 %) had clinical implications, while the results of 78.6 % of examinations (51.6–99.0 %) were deemed useful for patient education. This first standardized multicountry survey performed in CEEs provided a structured documentation of the routine MSUS use in participating countries. The majority of MSUS examinations were performed for diagnostic purposes, whereas one-third was conducted to monitor disease activity in RA. A majority of examinations had an impact on clinical decision making and were also found to be useful for patient education.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Mandl
- Division of Rheumatology, 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, 18-20 Währinger Gürtel, Vienna, Austria. .,3rd Department of Rheumatology, National Institute of Rheumatology and Physiotherapy, Budapest, Hungary.
| | - Asta Baranauskaite
- Department of Rheumatology, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania
| | - Nemanja Damjanov
- Institute of Rheumatology, University of Belgrade School of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - Maja Hojnik
- Global Medical Affairs Rheumatology, AbbVie, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Reka Kurucz
- 3rd Department of Rheumatology, National Institute of Rheumatology and Physiotherapy, Budapest, Hungary
| | | | - Petr Nemec
- Department of Rheumatology, St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Dora Niedermayer
- 3rd Department of Rheumatology, National Institute of Rheumatology and Physiotherapy, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Porin Perić
- Department of Rheumatology, Clinical Hospital Center Zagreb, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Tzvetanka Petranova
- Department of Rheumatology, UMHAT St.Iv.Rilsky, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria
| | | | - Simona Rednic
- Department of Rheumatology, Clinical County Emergency Hospital, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Violeta Vlad
- Department of Rheumatology, Sf. Maria Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
| | - Martin Zlnay
- Department of Rheumatology, National Institute of Rheumatic Diseases, Piestany, Slovak Republic
| | - Peter V Balint
- 3rd Department of Rheumatology, National Institute of Rheumatology and Physiotherapy, Budapest, Hungary
| |
Collapse
|