2014
DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-268
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A double-blind, randomized controlled trial to compare the effect of biannual peripheral magnetic resonance imaging, radiography and standard of care disease progression monitoring on pharmacotherapeutic escalation in rheumatoid and undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract: BackgroundPermanent joint damage is a major consequence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the most common and destructive form of inflammatory arthritis. In aggressive disease, joint damage can occur within 6 months from symptom onset. Early, intensive treatment with conventional and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) can delay the onset and progression of joint damage. The primary objective of the study is to investigate the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or radiography (X-ray) ov… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 68 publications
(76 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A total of 204 records were selected for full-text assessment from 10,812 unique references (Figure 1). Corresponding authors of 26 publications (13 conference abstracts and 13 full text papers) were contacted; information was supplied by 16, resulting in inclusion of three 56 57 70 and exclusion of 12 21 7384 . Common reasons for exclusion were ineligible study participants, ≥50% with RA; 74/185, 40%) or lack of follow up (35/185, 19%).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A total of 204 records were selected for full-text assessment from 10,812 unique references (Figure 1). Corresponding authors of 26 publications (13 conference abstracts and 13 full text papers) were contacted; information was supplied by 16, resulting in inclusion of three 56 57 70 and exclusion of 12 21 7384 . Common reasons for exclusion were ineligible study participants, ≥50% with RA; 74/185, 40%) or lack of follow up (35/185, 19%).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%