Chronic Extremity Joint Pain-Suspected Inflammatory Arthritis, Crystalline Arthritis, or Erosive Osteoarthritis

Variant: 1 Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect inflammatory (seropositive or seronegative arthritis), crystalline (gout or pseudogout), or erosive osteoarthritis. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography area of interest	Usually Appropriate	Varies
US area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Variant: 2 Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect inflammatory arthritis (seropositive or seronegative arthritis). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US area of interest	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
Image-guided aspiration area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Variant: 3 Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect gout. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US area of interest	Usually Appropriate	O
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	Varies
Image-guided aspiration area of interest	May Be Appropriate	Varies
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Variant: 4 Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate disease (pseudogout). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US area of interest	Usually Appropriate	O
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	Varies
Image-guided aspiration area of interest	May Be Appropriate	Varies
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Variant: 5 Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect erosive osteoarthritis. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US area of interest	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
Image-guided aspiration area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Panel Members

Naveen Subhas, MD, MPH^a; Fangbai Wu, MD^b; Michael G. Fox, MD, MBA^c; Nicholas C. Nacey, MD^d; Fawad Aslam, MBBS, MS^e; Donna G. Blankenbaker, MD^f; Jamie T. Caracciolo, MD, MBA^g; Debra Anne DeJoseph, MD^h; Matthew A. Frick, MDⁱ; Shari T. Jawetz, MD^j; Nicholas Said, MD, MBA^k; Claire K. Sandstrom, MD^l; Akash Sharma, MD, MBA^m; J. Derek Stensby, MDⁿ; Eric A. Walker, MD, MHA^o; Eric Y. Chang, MD^p.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect inflammatory (seropositive or seronegative arthritis), crystalline (gout or pseudogout), or erosive osteoarthritis. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect inflammatory (seropositive or seronegative arthritis), crystalline (gout or pseudogout), or erosive osteoarthritis. Initial imaging.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 2: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect inflammatory arthritis (seropositive or seronegative arthritis). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.

Variant 2: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect inflammatory arthritis (seropositive or seronegative arthritis). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 3: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect gout. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.

Variant 3: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect gout. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 3: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect gout. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
B. CT area of interest with IV contrast

Variant 3: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect gout. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
C. CT area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect gout. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
D. CT area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 3: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect gout. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
E. FDG-PET/CT whole body

Variant 3: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect gout. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
F. Image-guided aspiration area of interest

Variant 3: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect gout. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
G. MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect gout. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
H. MRI area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 3: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect gout. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
I. US area of interest

Variant 4: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate disease (pseudogout). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.

Variant 4: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate disease (pseudogout). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 4: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate disease (pseudogout). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
B. CT area of interest with IV contrast

Variant 4: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate disease (pseudogout). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
C. CT area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate disease (pseudogout). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
D. CT area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 4: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate disease (pseudogout). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
E. FDG-PET/CT whole body

Variant 4: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate disease (pseudogout). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
F. Image-guided aspiration area of interest

Variant 4: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate disease (pseudogout). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
G. MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate disease (pseudogout). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
H. MRI area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 4: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate disease (pseudogout). Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
I. US area of interest

Variant 5: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect erosive osteoarthritis. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.

Variant 5: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect erosive osteoarthritis. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 5: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect erosive osteoarthritis. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
B. CT area of interest with IV contrast

Variant 5: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect erosive osteoarthritis. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
C. CT area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect erosive osteoarthritis. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
D. CT area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 5: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect erosive osteoarthritis. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
E. FDG-PET/CT whole body

Variant 5: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect erosive osteoarthritis. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
F. Image-guided aspiration area of interest

Variant 5: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect erosive osteoarthritis. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
G. MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast

Variant 5: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect erosive osteoarthritis. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
H. MRI area of interest without IV contrast

Variant 5: Chronic extremity joint pain. Suspect erosive osteoarthritis. Radiographs normal or inconclusive. Next imaging study.
I. US area of interest

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Zhang W, Doherty M, Leeb BF, et al. EULAR evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis: report of a task force of ESCISIT. [Review] [100 refs]. Ann Rheum Dis. 68(1):8-17, 2009 Jan.
2.	Gabriel SE, Michaud K. Epidemiological studies in incidence, prevalence, mortality, and comorbidity of the rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Res Ther 2009;11:229.
3.	Zhu Y, Pandya BJ, Choi HK. Prevalence of gout and hyperuricemia in the US general population: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2008. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:3136-41.
4.	Czuczman GJ, Mandell JC, Wessell DE, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Inflammatory Back Pain: Known or Suspected Axial Spondyloarthritis: 2021 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18:S340-S60.
5.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Suspected Osteomyelitis, Septic Arthritis, or Soft Tissue Infection (Excluding Spine and Diabetic Foot). Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/3094201/Narrative/.
6.	Guggi V, Calame L, Gerster JC. Contribution of digit joint aspiration to the diagnosis of rheumatic diseases. Joint, Bone, Spine: Revue du Rhumatisme. 69(1):58-61, 2002 Jan.
7.	Zamudio-Cuevas Y, Martinez-Nava GA, Martinez-Flores K, et al. Synovial fluid analysis for the enhanced clinical diagnosis of crystal arthropathies in a tertiary care institution. Clin Rheumatol 2021;40:3239-46.
8.	Aoki T, Fujii M, Yamashita Y, et al. Tomosynthesis of the wrist and hand in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with radiography and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 202(2):386-90, 2014 Feb.
9.	Backhaus M, Kamradt T, Sandrock D, et al. Arthritis of the finger joints: a comprehensive approach comparing conventional radiography, scintigraphy, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:1232-45.
10.	Baillet A, Gaujoux-Viala C, Mouterde G, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of sonography, magnetic resonance imaging and conventional radiography for the detection of bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Rheumatology (Oxford). 50(6):1137-47, 2011 Jun.
11.	Dohn UM, Ejbjerg BJ, Court-Payen M, et al. Are bone erosions detected by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography true erosions? A comparison with computed tomography in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints. Arthritis Research & Therapy. 8(4):R110, 2006.
12.	Wakefield RJ, Gibbon WW, Conaghan PG, et al. The value of sonography in the detection of bone erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with conventional radiography. Arthritis Rheum. 43(12):2762-70, 2000 Dec.
13.	Colebatch AN, Edwards CJ, Ostergaard M, et al. EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging of the joints in the clinical management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 72(6):804-14, 2013 Jun.
14.	McQueen FM.. Imaging in early rheumatoid arthritis. [Review]. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 27(4):499-522, 2013 Aug.
15.	Gandikota G, Fakuda T, Finzel S. Computed tomography in rheumatology - From DECT to high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT. [Review]. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 34(6):101641, 2020 12.
16.	Kubota K, Ito K, Morooka M, et al. FDG PET for rheumatoid arthritis: basic considerations and whole-body PET/CT. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011;1228:29-38.
17.	van der Krogt JMA, van Binsbergen WH, van der Laken CJ, Tas SW. Novel positron emission tomography tracers for imaging of rheumatoid arthritis. [Review]. Autoimmun Rev. 20(3):102764, 2021 Mar.
18.	Tan YK, Ostergaard M, Bird P, Conaghan PG. Ultrasound versus high field magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis. [Review]. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 32(1 Suppl 80):S99-105, 2014 Jan-Feb.
19.	Nakashima Y, Tamai M, Kita J, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Bone Edema at Enrollment Predicts Rapid Radiographic Progression in Patients with Early RA: Results from the Nagasaki University Early Arthritis Cohort. J Rheumatol. 43(7):1278-84, 2016 07.
20.	Nieuwenhuis WP, van Steenbergen HW, Stomp W, et al. The Course of Bone Marrow Edema in Early Undifferentiated Arthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Longitudinal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study at Bone Level. Arthritis & Rheumatology. 68(5):1080-8, 2016 05.Arthritis rheumatol.. 68(5):1080-8, 2016 05.
21.	Navalho M, Resende C, Rodrigues AM, et al. Bilateral MR imaging of the hand and wrist in early and very early inflammatory arthritis: tenosynovitis is associated with progression to rheumatoid arthritis. Radiology. 264(3):823-33, 2012 Sep.
22.	Ostergaard M, Conaghan PG, O'Connor P, et al. Reducing invasiveness, duration, and cost of magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis by omitting intravenous contrast injection -- Does it change the assessment of inflammatory and destructive joint changes by the OMERACT RAMRIS? J Rheumatol. 2009;36(8):1806-1810.
23.	Stomp W, Krabben A, van der Heijde D, et al. Aiming for a simpler early arthritis MRI protocol: can Gd contrast administration be eliminated? Eur Radiol. 2015;25(5):1520-1527.
24.	Spira D, Kotter I, Henes J, et al. MRI findings in psoriatic arthritis of the hands. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:1187-93.
25.	Taniguchi Y, Kumon Y, Takata T, et al. Imaging assessment of enthesitis in spondyloarthritis. Ann Nucl Med 2013;27:105-11.
26.	Sundin U, Ostergaard M, Glinatsi D, et al. Validity and Responsiveness of Combined Inflammation and Combined Joint Damage Scores Based on the OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis MRI Scoring System (RAMRIS). J Rheumatol. 46(9):1222-1227, 2019 09.
27.	Boeters DM, Nieuwenhuis WP, van Steenbergen HW, Reijnierse M, Landewe RBM, van der Helm-van Mil AHM. Are MRI-detected erosions specific for RA? A large explorative cross-sectional study. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 77(6):861-868, 2018 06.Ann Rheum Dis. 77(6):861-868, 2018 06.
28.	Eshed I, Krabbe S, Ostergaard M, et al. Influence of field strength, coil type and image resolution on assessment of synovitis by unenhanced MRI--a comparison with contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 2015;25:1059-67.
29.	Finzel S, Ohrndorf S, Englbrecht M, et al. A detailed comparative study of high-resolution ultrasound and micro-computed tomography for detection of arthritic bone erosions. Arthritis Rheum. 63(5):1231-6, 2011 May.
30.	Zayat AS, Ellegaard K, Conaghan PG, et al. The specificity of ultrasound-detected bone erosions for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 74(5):897-903, 2015 May.
31.	Fujikawa K, Kawashiri SY, Endo Y, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound detection of enthesitis in peripheral spondyloarthritis. Mod Rheumatol. 30(6):1060-1066, 2020 Nov.
32.	Sapundzhieva T, Karalilova R, Batalov A. Hand ultrasound patterns in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis: the role of ultrasound in the differential diagnosis. Rheumatol Int. 40(6):837-848, 2020 Jun.
33.	Zabotti A, Salvin S, Quartuccio L, De Vita S. Differentiation between early rheumatoid and early psoriatic arthritis by the ultrasonographic study of the synovio-entheseal complex of the small joints of the hands. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 34(3):459-65, 2016 May-Jun.
34.	Sandobal C, Carbo E, Iribas J, Roverano S, Paira S. Ultrasound nail imaging on patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis compared with rheumatoid arthritis and control subjects. J Clin Rheumatol 2014;20:21-4.
35.	Takase-Minegishi K, Horita N, Kobayashi K, et al. Diagnostic test accuracy of ultrasound for synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Rheumatology. 57(1):49-58, 2018 01 01.
36.	Tan YK, Li H, Allen JC Jr, Thumboo J. Ultrasound power Doppler and gray scale joint inflammation: What they reveal in rheumatoid arthritis. Int J Rheum Dis. 22(9):1719-1723, 2019 Sep.
37.	Moller B, Aletaha D, Andor M, et al. Synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis detected by grey scale ultrasound predicts the development of erosions over the next three years. Rheumatology (Oxford). 59(7):1556-1565, 2020 07 01.
38.	Taylor PC, Steuer A, Gruber J, et al. Comparison of ultrasonographic assessment of synovitis and joint vascularity with radiographic evaluation in a randomized, placebo-controlled study of infliximab therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:1107-16.
39.	Zhao C, Wang Q, Tao X, et al. Multimodal photoacoustic/ultrasonic imaging system: a promising imaging method for the evaluation of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. Eur Radiol. 31(5):3542-3552, 2021 May.
40.	Zhao C, Wang Q, Wang M, et al. Ultra-microangiography in evaluating the disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis and enhancing the efficacy of ultrasonography: A preliminary study. Eur J Radiol. 137:109567, 2021 Apr.
41.	Witt M, Mueller F, Nigg A, et al. Relevance of grade 1 gray-scale ultrasound findings in wrists and small joints to the assessment of subclinical synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 65(7):1694-701, 2013 Jul.
42.	Witt MN, Mueller F, Weinert P, et al. Ultrasound of synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis: advantages of the dorsal over the palmar approach to finger joints. J Rheumatol. 41(3):422-8, 2014 Mar.
43.	Backhaus M, Ohrndorf S, Kellner H, et al. Evaluation of a novel 7-joint ultrasound score in daily rheumatologic practice: a pilot project. Arthritis Rheum. 61(9):1194-201, 2009 Sep 15.
44.	Ohrndorf S, Halbauer B, Martus P, et al. Detailed Joint Region Analysis of the 7-Joint Ultrasound Score: Evaluation of an Arthritis Patient Cohort over One Year. Int J Rheumatol. 2013;2013:493848.
45.	Rosa J, Ruta S, Saucedo C, et al. Does a Simplified 6-Joint Ultrasound Index Correlate Well Enough With the 28-Joint Disease Activity Score to Be Used in Clinical Practice?. J. clin. rheumatol.. 22(4):179-83, 2016 Jun.
46.	Kuo D, Morris NT, Kaeley GS, et al. Sentinel joint scoring in rheumatoid arthritis: an individualized power Doppler assessment strategy. Clin Rheumatol. 40(3):1077-1084, 2021 Mar.
47.	Gamala M, Jacobs JWG, van Laar JM. The diagnostic performance of dual energy CT for diagnosing gout: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 58(12):2117-2121, 2019 12 01.
48.	Lee YH, Song GG. Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography in patients with gout: A meta-analysis. [Review]. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 47(1):95-101, 2017 08.
49.	Yu Z, Mao T, Xu Y, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT in gout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Skeletal Radiol. 47(12):1587-1593, 2018 Dec.
50.	Sivera F, Andres M, Falzon L, van der Heijde DM, Carmona L. Diagnostic value of clinical, laboratory, and imaging findings in patients with a clinical suspicion of gout: a systematic literature review. J Rheumatol Suppl. 2014;92:3-8.
51.	Klauser AS, Halpern EJ, Strobl S, et al. Gout of hand and wrist: the value of US as compared with DECT. Eur Radiol. 28(10):4174-4181, 2018 Oct.
52.	Wang Y, Deng X, Xu Y, Ji L, Zhang Z. Detection of uric acid crystal deposition by ultrasonography and dual-energy computed tomography: A cross-sectional study in patients with clinically diagnosed gout. Medicine (Baltimore). 97(42):e12834, 2018 Oct.
53.	Zou Z, Yang M, Wang Y, Zhang B. Gout of ankle and foot: DECT versus US for crystal detection. Clin Rheumatol. 40(4):1533-1537, 2021 Apr.
54.	Araujo EG, Bayat S, Petsch C, et al. Tophus resolution with pegloticase: a prospective dual-energy CT study. RMD Open. 1(1):e000075, 2015.
55.	Richette P, Doherty M, Pascual E, et al. 2018 updated European League Against Rheumatism evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of gout. Ann Rheum Dis. 79(1):31-38, 2020 01.
56.	Wallace SL, Robinson H, Masi AT, Decker JL, McCarty DJ, Yu TF. Preliminary criteria for the classification of the acute arthritis of primary gout. Arthritis Rheum 1977;20:895-900.
57.	McQueen FM, Doyle A, Reeves Q, et al. Bone erosions in patients with chronic gouty arthropathy are associated with tophi but not bone oedema or synovitis: new insights from a 3 T MRI study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2014;53(1):95-103.
58.	Gutierrez M, Schmidt WA, Thiele RG, et al. International Consensus for ultrasound lesions in gout: results of Delphi process and web-reliability exercise. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2015;54:1797-805.
59.	Christiansen SN, Ostergaard M, Slot O, Fana V, Terslev L. Ultrasound for the diagnosis of gout-the value of gout lesions as defined by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology ultrasound group. Rheumatology (Oxford). 60(1):239-249, 2021 01 05.
60.	Ogdie A, Taylor WJ, Weatherall M, et al. Imaging modalities for the classification of gout: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014.
61.	Cazenave T, Martire V, Reginato AM, et al. Reliability of OMERACT ultrasound elementary lesions in gout: results from a multicenter exercise. Rheumatol Int. 39(4):707-713, 2019 04.
62.	Chowalloor PV, Keen HI. A systematic review of ultrasonography in gout and asymptomatic hyperuricaemia. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72(5):638-645.
63.	Zhang B, Yang M, Wang H. Diagnostic value of ultrasound versus dual-energy computed tomography in patients with different stages of acute gouty arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 39(5):1649-1653, 2020 May.
64.	Ebstein E, Forien M, Norkuviene E, et al. Ultrasound evaluation in follow-up of urate-lowering therapy in gout: the USEFUL study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 58(3):410-417, 2019 03 01.
65.	Hammer HB, Karoliussen L, Terslev L, Haavardsholm EA, Kvien TK, Uhlig T. Ultrasound shows rapid reduction of crystal depositions during a treat-to-target approach in gout patients: 12-month results from the NOR-Gout study. Ann Rheum Dis. 79(11):1500-1505, 2020 11.
66.	Zhang W, Doherty M, Bardin T, et al. European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for calcium pyrophosphate deposition. Part I: terminology and diagnosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 70(4):563-70, 2011 Apr.
67.	Ramonda R, Musacchio E, Perissinotto E, et al. Prevalence of chondrocalcinosis in Italian subjects from northeastern Italy. The Pro.V.A. (PROgetto Veneto Anziani) study. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2009;27:981-4.
68.	Filippou G, Adinolfi A, Cimmino MA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, conventional radiography and synovial fluid analysis in the diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate crystal deposition disease. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 34(2):254-60, 2016 Mar-Apr.
69.	McQueen FM, Doyle A, Dalbeth N. Imaging in the crystal arthropathies. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2014;40:231-49.
70.	Budzik JF, Marzin C, Legrand J, Norberciak L, Becce F, Pascart T. Can Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Be Used to Identify Early Calcium Crystal Deposition in the Knees of Patients With Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition?. Arthritis rheumatol.. 73(4):687-692, 2021 04.
71.	Tanikawa H, Ogawa R, Okuma K, et al. Detection of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate crystals in knee meniscus by dual-energy computed tomography. J. ORTHOP. SURG.. 13(1):73, 2018 Apr 05.
72.	Sullivan J, Pillinger MH, Toprover M. Chondrocalcinosis: Advances in Diagnostic Imaging. [Review]. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 23(10):77, 2021 10 08.
73.	Gutierrez M, Di Geso L, Salaffi F, et al. Ultrasound detection of cartilage calcification at knee level in calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66(1):69-73.
74.	Lee KA, Lee SH, Kim HR. Diagnostic value of ultrasound in calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease of the knee joint. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 27(5):781-787, 2019 05.
75.	Filippou G, Scanu A, Adinolfi A, et al. Criterion validity of ultrasound in the identification of calcium pyrophosphate crystal deposits at the knee: an OMERACT ultrasound study. Ann Rheum Dis. 80(2):261-267, 2021 02.
76.	Wittoek R, Jans L, Lambrecht V, Carron P, Verstraete K, Verbruggen G. Reliability and construct validity of ultrasonography of soft tissue and destructive changes in erosive osteoarthritis of the interphalangeal finger joints: a comparison with MRI. Ann Rheum Dis. 70(2):278-83, 2011 Feb.
77.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.