English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective  The dual-energy CT (DECT) algorithm for urate detection is feasible only if hyperdense deposits are present. Based on our experience, around half of the performed DECT examinations show no such deposits and thus were useless for this indication. Our diagnostic accuracy study investigates whether conventional radiographs can serve as gatekeeper test prior to DECT for reliable exclusion of such radiopaque deposits.    Materials and methods  In this retrospective study, 77 clinically indicated DECT examinations of the hand (n = 29), foot (n = 36) and ankle (n = 12) of 55 patients (13 female, mean age 62±15 years) with suspected gouty arthritis were included. Two blinded readers independently evaluated DECT, gray-scale CT images (reference standard) and corresponding standardized radiographs for the presence/location of dense soft tissue deposits.    Results  Interreader agreement for detection of soft tissue deposits with DECT and radiographs was excellent (DECT: both readers, κ = 1; radiographs: both readers, κ = 0.94). DECT showed soft tissue deposits in 54/77 DECT (70%) scans. 30/54 scans (56%) showed deposits on the corresponding radiographs, while in 24 scans (44%) no deposits were seen on radiographs. Test performance of radiographs for soft tissue deposit detection: sensitivity 56%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, NPV 48.9%, and accuracy 69%. Low density of the deposits was the main reasons for false-negative radiographs (19 cases, 79%), followed by superimposition of deposits by osseous structures (5 cases, 21%).    Conclusion  Conventional radiographs of the hand, foot and ankle cannot serve as a gatekeeper test for reliable exclusion of radiopaque soft tissue deposits prior to DECT.

Gouty arthritis: Can we avoid unnecessary dual-energy CT examinations using prior radiographs?