Premium
Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Scanning Protocol Consensus Statements on Scanning Conventions and Documentation in the US
Author(s) -
Torralba Karina D.,
Choi Kristal S.,
Salto Lorena M.,
Fairchild Robert,
Cannella Amy C.,
Kissin Eugene Y.,
Thiele Ralf,
Evangelisto Amy,
Nishio Midori J.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
arthritis care and research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.032
H-Index - 163
eISSN - 2151-4658
pISSN - 2151-464X
DOI - 10.1002/acr.24005
Subject(s) - documentation , medicine , mcnemar's test , protocol (science) , rheumatology , test (biology) , family medicine , terminology , medical physics , delphi method , medical education , radiology , alternative medicine , pathology , computer science , artificial intelligence , statistics , mathematics , paleontology , linguistics , philosophy , biology , programming language
Objective European rheumatology and radiology‐determined standards have largely driven the execution of ultrasound in rheumatology (Rh US ). How this translates to American rheumatologic practice has not been examined. A rheumatology‐driven consensus on documentation, scanning conventions, and tiered‐mastery designation for anatomic region views was developed in 2011 and served as the framework for training and clinical research validation. The present study was undertaken to update this consensus to reflect current utilization of musculoskeletal Rh US evaluation in the US . Methods A 3‐round Delphi method study was conducted using a 96‐item questionnaire sent via Qualtrics survey software to 101 respondents experienced in Rh US education and scholarship. The target participant number was 38. High agreement was defined as ≥85% agreement on each item. McNemar's chi‐square test was used to analyze changes in agreement in the responses. Comments were reviewed for content analysis. Results A total of 46 respondents completed all 3 rounds. Of documentation and scanning convention statements, 80% and 100%, respectively, reached high agreement. Comments reflected the need for rheumatology‐defined and disease‐specific complete scan and limited scan definitions, separate from radiology‐defined definitions. Conclusion Many scanning conventions from 2011 remain relevant in current practice. There is a need to determine rheumatology‐defined descriptions for common procedural terminology codes for complete and limited scans that accurately reflect the current state of Rh US .