Olga Goodman, MD
Independent Researcher, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Imaging
Corresponding author: Olga Goodman, MD
Email: info@rheumaview.com
Narrative Review with Implementation Framework
Abstract
Background: Early seronegative inflammatory arthritis often presents with limited external phenotype and inconclusive serology. In this setting, radiographs are frequently reported as “no erosions” or “no acute abnormality,” which can delay phenotype anchoring and increase the risk of misaligned therapy during the window of opportunity.
Objective: To review peripheral imaging features—particularly microerosions and enthesitis-adjacent changes—that can provide decision-relevant diagnostic lift in early seronegative disease, and to propose an XR-first escalation framework for targeted use of ultrasound with power Doppler (US-PD) and MRI.
Methods: Narrative review integrating modality-specific strengths and limitations, evidence context, and a pragmatic pattern dictionary for phenotype anchoring. Supplementary appendices provide an escalation decision tree, illustrated pattern mini-atlas, and reporting checklists.
Key Points: Subtle structural and activity-linked imaging patterns can shift phenotype probability toward RA-like versus PsA/SpA-like pathways or toward mimics (degenerative, crystal-associated, mechanical/overuse). Imaging value depends not only on modality sensitivity but also on report actionability—consistent, descriptor-complete description of distribution, co-features, and uncertainty.
Conclusion: Imaging-first phenotype anchoring offers a pragmatic pathway to reduce uncertainty and support progression prevention in early seronegative peripheral disease, while minimizing over-treatment through explicit mimic recognition and question-driven escalation.
Key Messages
- Early seronegative inflammatory arthritis frequently yields non-actionable first-line imaging reads despite clinically meaningful disease, contributing to diagnostic inertia during the window of opportunity.
- Microerosions and enthesitis-adjacent changes are most useful when interpreted as pattern elements (topography + distribution + co-features + activity context), not as isolated findings.
- An XR-first, question-driven escalation strategy (to US-PD and selectively to MRI) can operationalize phenotype anchoring while explicitly managing mimics and avoiding over-treatment.
- In several practical scenarios, correctly acquired and interpreted radiographs can be superior to US or MRI for cortical integrity, mineralized change, alignment/biomechanics, and longitudinal comparability.
Keywords: seronegative inflammatory arthritis; early arthritis; microerosions; enthesitis; ultrasound power Doppler; MRI bone marrow edema; structured reporting; phenotype anchoring; DMARD stratification; progression prevention
Abbreviations: BME, bone marrow edema; CPPD, calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease; DECT, dual-energy computed tomography; DMARD, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; HR-pQCT, high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MSU, monosodium urate; OA, osteoarthritis; PD, power Doppler; PsA, psoriatic arthritis; RA, rheumatoid arthritis; SpA, spondyloarthritis; US, ultrasound; XR, plain radiography
1. Introduction
1.1 The Early Seronegative Diagnostic Gap
Early inflammatory arthritis does not uniformly present with a clear external phenotype. In seronegative patients—those lacking RF and anti-CCP positivity—clinical features may be intermittent or low-amplitude, and the initial differential frequently includes mechanical, crystal-associated, and degenerative pathways.[19,20] The result is a predictable uncertainty gap: true inflammatory disease may be undertreated (diagnostic inertia), while benign mimics may be overtreated when ambiguous imaging findings are overinterpreted. Both failure modes carry cost during the period when disease modification is most impactful.
In this context, imaging is often treated as a confirmatory step, yet in practice it can either accelerate clarity or inadvertently reinforce uncertainty. A radiograph read as “no erosions” may be technically correct but clinically non-actionable, because the decision question in early seronegative disease is rarely binary. The clinically decisive questions are typically:
- Is the dominant driver at the symptomatic sites inflammatory or non-inflammatory (and where is it—joint, tendon sheath, enthesis)?
- Does the distribution and morphology support an RA-like phenotype, a PsA/SpA-like phenotype, or a mimic pathway?
- Is there imaging context suggesting higher structural risk (and therefore a need for closer follow-up and earlier therapy intensification), and what is the next best test to reduce uncertainty?
1.2 Why First-Line Imaging Often Fails
First-line imaging fails early seronegative patients less because information is absent and more because it is inconsistently sought and described. Routine narrative reports may omit distribution statements, joint-by-joint mapping, tendon sheath and enthesis assessment, and explicit mimic analysis. When subtle cortical abnormalities are present, they may be either undercalled (“normal”) or overcalled (“early erosions”) without the pattern context needed for safe interpretation. This review frames that gap as an actionability problem: the clinician needs a structured description that enables probability updates and targeted escalation, not a generic normal/abnormal label.
1.3 Imaging-First Phenotype Anchoring: Definition and Intent
We use the term imaging-first phenotype anchoring to describe a probability-shifting workflow in which imaging patterns are used to strengthen or weaken competing phenotypes in early seronegative disease. The intent is not diagnosis by image alone, nor universal escalation to advanced imaging, but a disciplined approach to (i) detect subtle structural and periarticular patterns, (ii) explicitly manage mimics, and (iii) deploy US-PD or MRI selectively when they answer a discriminative clinical question.
Within peripheral disease, two early pattern elements are emphasized: microerosions (small cortical breaks or margin defects that become meaningful in anatomical and distribution context) and enthesitis-adjacent changes (peri-entheseal cortical irregularity and related features that can anchor PsA/SpA-like pathways when paired with activity context).
1.4 Scope Statement
This review focuses on peripheral joints and periarticular structures (hands, wrists, feet, ankles, and selected elbows/knees when clinically relevant). Early axial skeleton and pelvic/hip pattern recognition (including sacroiliac joints and spine) involves distinct lesion taxonomy and modality priorities and will be addressed in a companion manuscript (see Appendix E).
2. Clinical Frame: Which Patients and Decisions This Applies To
2.1 Defining “Early” and “Seronegative”
For practical purposes, “early” in this review refers to patients within approximately the first 12–24 months of persistent symptoms or documented inflammatory episodes, recognizing that onset is often imprecise. “Seronegative” refers to absence of RF and anti-CCP positivity; additional markers (e.g., HLA-B27) are treated as contextual rather than defining. The framework is designed for situations where serology does not provide a phenotype anchor and imaging is asked to reduce diagnostic uncertainty.
2.2 The “Low External Phenotype” Presentation
The core use case is the patient with inflammatory-suggestive pain (morning stiffness, episodic swelling, inflammatory flares, or objective tenderness patterns) but limited external phenotype—minimal swelling on exam, absent deformity, and sometimes absent or occult psoriasis. In such cases, periarticular drivers (tenosynovitis, enthesitis) may dominate symptoms while conventional radiographs remain near-normal.
2.3 Decision Stakes: Delay, Mismatch, and Progression
Decision stakes are asymmetric. Under-recognition of inflammatory disease can delay therapy intensification and allow structural progression; over-interpretation of ambiguous microfindings can lead to unnecessary immunomodulation. Imaging-first phenotype anchoring is intended to reduce both errors by requiring (i) explicit pattern context, (ii) mimic controls, and (iii) question-driven escalation to US-PD or MRI only when the result is likely to change management posture or follow-up intensity.
3. Related Work and Evidence Context
This narrative review was informed by targeted reading of guideline documents and primary studies addressing imaging in early inflammatory arthritis, seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, prognostic value of imaging lesions, and imaging mimics (pseudoerosions). The goal is not exhaustive synthesis but an evidence-anchored, implementation-oriented framework for peripheral early seronegative presentations.
3.1 Professional Guidelines for Imaging in Inflammatory Arthritis
Current guidelines position imaging as an adjunct when clinical doubt persists, with modality selection driven by the question being asked (structural baseline, active inflammation, or alternative diagnoses).[1-4] Recommendations recognize that radiography provides a structural baseline and distribution context, ultrasound can detect synovitis/tenosynovitis and Doppler activity, and MRI can identify osteitis/BME and occult inflammation when it is decision-relevant.
3.2 Imaging-Guided Treatment Trials: ARCTIC and IMAGINE-RA
Two randomized controlled trials are frequently cited in discussions of imaging-driven management. The ARCTIC trial[5] compared ultrasound-guided tight control with conventional tight control in early RA and did not demonstrate superior outcomes with routine ultrasound-driven escalation. The IMAGINE-RA trial,[6,7] focused on patients in clinical remission, similarly did not show benefit of an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy compared with conventional treat-to-target care.
Interpretation for this manuscript: these trials evaluate routine imaging targets as escalation triggers in established or controlled disease. They do not negate the role of imaging for early phenotype anchoring in seronegative uncertainty, where imaging is used to reduce diagnostic ambiguity and localize active drivers rather than to intensify treatment despite already controlled clinical disease.
3.3 Ultrasound in Seronegative Rheumatoid Arthritis
Multiple studies support the value of musculoskeletal ultrasound—particularly grayscale synovial hypertrophy, PD activity, tenosynovitis, and ultrasound-detected erosions—in differentiating seronegative RA from OA and other causes of symptoms.[8,9] This literature reinforces a central practical point for seronegative patients: inflammatory activity may be present and localizable even when radiographs are non-specific.
3.4 Prognostic Value of Imaging Findings
Observational studies in early arthritis suggest that combinations of structural lesions (including small erosive changes) and objective activity (Doppler signal on ultrasound) are associated with higher likelihood of subsequent structural progression.[10,11] In MRI literature, osteitis/BME has repeatedly been linked to increased risk of radiographic progression and erosive development in early disease.[12-14] These findings support using activity context and risk modifiers to calibrate follow-up intensity and therapy posture, while maintaining that imaging findings alone are not sufficient for treatment decisions.
3.5 Advanced Imaging Modalities
High-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) can characterize cortical breaks and microstructural bone change at a resolution unavailable to routine clinical modalities and is often used as a research reference for microerosion concepts.[15] Its role in this manuscript is primarily conceptual—supporting the plausibility that microstructural cortical change exists early—rather than as a routine clinical recommendation.
3.6 Mimics and Pseudoerosions
A safety-critical body of work highlights pseudoerosions and other mimics (anatomic concavities, vascular channels, degenerative pits, subchondral cysts, projection artifacts) that can be mistaken for inflammatory erosions.[16] This literature emphasizes that “micro-defects” require multi-view confirmation, distribution logic, and correlation with co-features and activity context. Practical mimic checkpoints are operationalized in Section 5.2.
Crystal-associated arthropathies represent a distinct mimic category requiring specific imaging consideration.[4] In patients where gout or CPPD enters the differential, DECT provides definitive detection of MSU crystal deposits and may clarify whether erosive changes reflect crystal-driven versus inflammatory mechanisms. Ultrasound can also detect crystal deposits (double contour sign, hyperechoic aggregates) but with lower specificity than DECT.
4. Imaging Modalities: Strengths, Limitations, and Escalation Logic
4.1 Plain Radiography (XR)
Radiography remains the first-line modality for many suspected inflammatory arthritis presentations because it provides a standardized structural baseline, broad joint-set coverage, and efficient pattern screening.[1,3] XR is particularly valuable for: (i) mapping distribution and symmetry across hands/feet; (ii) identifying alignment and biomechanics that may drive symptoms or mimic inflammation; and (iii) establishing longitudinal comparability for detecting change over time.
Limitation: XR is less sensitive for early inflammatory activity and may miss marrow and soft-tissue disease. Therefore, an XR report stating “no erosions” should be treated as a baseline statement, not as exclusion of inflammatory pathology when clinical suspicion persists.
Selected scenarios where XR can be superior to US or MRI (with correct technique):
Radiographs may outperform US and, in focused scenarios, MRI for mineralized cortical pathology and standardized structural comparison. XR can be superior for confirming cortical integrity of suspected microerosion candidates across complementary projections, detecting early mineralized periosteal response and entheseal new bone, assessing joint space narrowing and alignment mechanics with reproducible geometry, and recognizing whole-hand/whole-foot distribution patterns in a single exam. By contrast, ultrasound is operator- and window-dependent for cortical surfaces and cannot assess intraosseous processes; MRI excels for BME and soft tissue inflammation but is less efficient for whole-joint-set pattern mapping.
4.2 Ultrasound with Power Doppler (US-PD)
US-PD is a high-yield second-line modality when the decisive question is whether symptoms map to active inflammation and where that activity resides (synovium, tendon sheath, enthesis).[8-11] Strengths include real-time assessment, detection of synovitis and tenosynovitis, and Doppler activity as an objective inflammatory marker. Limitations include operator dependence, variability in scanning protocols, and restricted ability to survey the entire joint set at high detail in routine practice.
4.3 Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
MRI is most valuable when it answers a discriminative question that XR and US-PD cannot resolve: presence and extent of osteitis/BME as a risk modifier, occult synovitis/tenosynovitis in complex regions, or deep periarticular inflammation.[12-14] MRI should be used selectively in an XR-first pathway—particularly when discordance persists or when marrow-level inflammatory context would change follow-up intensity or therapy posture.
4.4 Modality Utility Matrix
A pragmatic modality utility matrix (Table 1) summarizes where each modality is most likely to change decisions in early seronegative peripheral disease. Utility is question-dependent and assumes adequate technique.
| Finding | XR | US-PD | MRI | Best First |
| Marginal erosion | ++ | +++ | +++ | XR→US |
| Synovitis activity | − | +++ | +++ | US-PD |
| Tenosynovitis | + | +++ | ++ | US-PD |
| Enthesitis | + | +++ | ++ | US-PD |
| BME / Osteitis | − | − | +++ | MRI |
| Distribution pattern | +++ | + | + | XR |
| Joint space narrowing | +++ | + | ++ | XR |
| Periosteal reaction | +++ | + | ++ | XR |
| Crystal deposition* | + | ++ | − | US/DECT |
| Degenerative features | +++ | ++ | ++ | XR |
Table 1. Modality utility matrix for early seronegative peripheral inflammatory arthritis.
Legend: +++ high decision impact; ++ moderate; + supportive; − usually not decision-changing (assuming adequate technique). This is a pragmatic utility guide, not a performance metric. *For crystal deposition, DECT provides definitive MSU detection when gout is in the differential; US can detect double contour sign and hyperechoic aggregates with lower specificity.
5.Microerosions and Early Structural Patterns
5.1 Defining Microerosions in Early Disease
Because “microerosion” is used variably in clinical discourse, this review adopts an operational definition: a microerosion candidate is a focal cortical break or margin defect that is anatomically plausible for inflammatory involvement and is supported by (a) reproducibility across projections or consistent localization, and/or (b) coherent distribution and co-features (synovitis/tenosynovitis, peri-entheseal change, or MRI inflammatory context). The label “candidate” is intentional and signals the need for pattern context and mimic control rather than implying diagnostic certainty.
5.2 Mimics and Pseudo-Erosions
Microerosion candidates are most commonly confounded by pseudoerosions and degenerative or anatomic variants.[16] Key pitfalls include vascular channels, subchondral cysts/geodes, degenerative pits, traction-related cortical irregularity, and projectional pseudo-defects. Operational checkpoints for practice include multi-view confirmation, surface-specific description (marginal vs central), distribution logic (which joints, symmetry), and correlation with activity context (US-PD) when available.
5.3 Enthesitis-Adjacent Changes
Enthesitis-adjacent changes refer here to peri-entheseal cortical irregularity and related mineralized responses that gain phenotype value when paired with distribution patterns and activity context. In early seronegative disease, these features can shift probability toward PsA/SpA-like pathways—particularly when accompanied by tendon/enthesis inflammation on US-PD or by regional inflammatory context on MRI—while recognizing that enthesis-adjacent mineralization can also be degenerative or mechanical.
6. Pattern Dictionary for Phenotype Anchoring
Peripheral showcase regions for early pattern recognition include MCP2–3 margins, ulnar styloid/carpus, and MTP joints (particularly MTP5), supplemented by PIP/DIP depending on the phenotype hypothesis. Patterns below are designed to function as probability updates and to end with a “next best test” question.
6.1 Pattern A: Marginal Microerosion Candidates at Classic RA Sites
Description: Small marginal cortical defects at classic RA-prone sites (e.g., MCP margins, ulnar styloid/carpal interfaces, MTP margins) that cluster in a symmetric or RA-leaning distribution. Interpretive context strengthens when co-features such as tenosynovitis or synovitis activity are present.
XR emphasis note: Ensure complementary projections that accentuate cortical rims and reduce pseudoerosion risk; describe surface (marginal) and joint-level location explicitly. Best next test: US-PD targeted to symptomatic joints and tendon compartments to confirm activity and localize drivers; consider MRI if osteitis/BME assessment would change risk posture.
6.2 Pattern B: Enthesitis-Adjacent Cortical Changes
Description: Peri-entheseal cortical irregularity with distribution and morphology suggestive of an enthesitis-driven pathway, especially when paired with tendon/enthesis activity signals or mild osteoproliferative context.
XR emphasis note: Describe the enthesis-adjacent location and mineralized response (if present) and distinguish from diffuse degenerative enthesopathy by distribution and co-features. Best next test: US-PD of the relevant entheses and adjacent tendon sheaths; MRI selectively when deep involvement or BME is suspected.
6.3 Pattern C: Periosteal Reaction and Fluffy New Bone
Description: Periosteal reaction or fluffy new bone in a peripheral distribution that, when integrated with clinical and soft-tissue context, can support PsA/SpA-like phenotypes over purely erosive RA-like pathways.
XR emphasis note: XR is often the most direct modality for thin mineralized periosteal response; describe location and extent and correlate with adjacent soft-tissue drivers when available. Best next test: US-PD for enthesitis/tenosynovitis activity mapping; MRI if marrow-level inflammatory context is needed.
6.4 Pattern D: DIP Involvement with Nail Changes
Description: DIP-predominant involvement (structural change and/or periarticular patterning) in a context where nail findings are present or suspected, shifting phenotype probability toward psoriatic pathways or selected mimic considerations.
XR emphasis note: Carefully map DIP distribution and distinguish erosive OA patterns by osteophyte/sclerosis context and central vs marginal localization. Best next test: US-PD of DIP synovitis and extensor tendon insertions if activity localization will change posture; consider MRI selectively for complex cases.
6.5 Pattern E: Asymmetric Oligoarticular Distribution
Description: Asymmetric oligoarticular distribution with periarticular drivers (tenosynovitis/enthesitis) and limited classic RA symmetry, which can support PsA/SpA-like pathways or reactive/post-infectious phenotypes depending on clinical context.
XR emphasis note: XR can be particularly useful here to document joint-set selection and exclude a predominantly degenerative architecture. Best next test: US-PD to localize active drivers at the selected joints; MRI only if deep or discordant features remain unresolved.
7. Structured Reporting for Rheumatology Decision Support
7.1 The Problem of Omission Bias
In early seronegative disease, report non-actionability is commonly driven by omission bias: absence of joint-by-joint mapping, lack of distribution and symmetry statements, and incomplete assessment of tendon sheaths and entheses. This can create false reassurance (“normal”) or unsafe escalation (“erosions”) when subtle features are not contextualized.
7.2 What Rheumatology Needs from Imaging Reports
Actionable reports in this setting should provide: (i) joint-level localization (which surface, which joint, laterality); (ii) distribution and symmetry statements; (iii) periarticular driver assessment (tenosynovitis, enthesis-adjacent changes); (iv) mimic checkpoints when microerosion candidates are described; and (v) explicit next-test logic when uncertainty remains (US-PD vs MRI and the question to be answered).
7.3 Structured Reporting Pipelines
Beyond modality choice, diagnostic lift often depends on whether subtle findings are described consistently across readers and timepoints. Template-enforced, descriptor-complete reporting—where required elements (distribution, cortical versus central localization, periarticular drivers, mimics, and uncertainty) are systematically prompted and internally checked for completeness—can reduce variability and improve longitudinal comparability. Such structured workflows function as a reproducibility layer that makes early subtle changes more legible for clinical decision-making without altering the underlying evidence limits of each modality.
8. Escalation Framework and Order Language
8.1 XR-First, Question-Driven Escalation
The proposed escalation framework is XR-first: obtain a standardized structural baseline and distribution map, then escalate to US-PD when the missing information is localization of active inflammation (synovitis/tenosynovitis/enthesitis) or when XR microerosion candidates require activity context. Escalate to MRI selectively when marrow-level inflammatory context (osteitis/BME) or deep anatomy is likely to change risk posture or resolve persistent discordance.
8.2 Order Language Templates
Order language should force an actionable answer by specifying the phenotype question and the discriminative target. For US-PD: request joint and tendon-compartment mapping with semiquantitative severity and PD activity, and specify entheses of concern. For MRI: request assessment for synovitis/tenosynovitis and osteitis/BME in the symptomatic region, and ask for distribution/context statements relevant to inflammatory versus degenerative pathways.
9. DMARD Stratification: Linking Imaging to Treatment Posture
9.1 Imaging as Probability and Risk Modifier
In early seronegative disease, imaging should be treated as a modifier of phenotype probability and structural risk, integrated with clinical assessment within treat-to-target principles.[19] Imaging is not a stand-alone trigger for therapy decisions; rather, it helps determine whether the dominant driver is inflammatory, which phenotype is most plausible, and whether risk context supports closer follow-up and earlier consideration of therapy intensification.
9.2 When Imaging May Support Earlier Therapy Intensification
Imaging features that increase the pretest probability of persistent inflammatory disease and raise concern for structural progression include coherent inflammatory distribution patterns (RA-like marginal microerosion candidates in classic sites or PsA/SpA-like enthesis-driven patterns), objective activity markers (moderate-to-marked PD signal, tenosynovitis), and/or MRI osteitis/BME in the symptomatic region. In such settings, imaging may justify closer monitoring and may support consideration of earlier therapy intensification when aligned with clinical trajectory and guideline-based treat-to-target care.
9.3 When Imaging May Support Re-Triage Toward Mimics
Conversely, imaging that demonstrates a predominantly degenerative/mechanical architecture (alignment-driven changes, osteophyte/sclerosis-dominant patterns, central erosive OA patterns) without convincing activity context lowers the probability that active inflammatory synovitis is the dominant driver at the imaged sites. These findings support re-triage toward mechanical/crystal pathways or watchful reassessment, with targeted US-PD reserved for cases where activity confirmation would change the plan.
10. Pitfalls, Reproducibility, and Limitations
10.1 Reader Variability and Protocol Dependence
Detection of microerosion candidates and enthesis-adjacent change is sensitive to acquisition quality, projection selection, scanning protocol (for US), and reader search behavior. Standardizing views, defining required descriptors, and explicitly documenting projection adequacy reduce variability and improve comparability.
10.2 False Positives and False Negatives
False positives arise from pseudoerosions and degenerative variants being labeled as inflammatory; false negatives arise from omission bias and sub-threshold disease. A safe framework therefore requires (i) explicit mimic checkpoints, (ii) pattern-context interpretation, and (iii) targeted escalation to US-PD or MRI when uncertainty is decision-relevant.
10.3 Implementation Constraints
Access to US-PD and MRI varies, and operator expertise is heterogeneous. The framework is designed to remain scalable by emphasizing XR-first pattern mapping and question-driven escalation rather than universal advanced imaging.
11. Conclusion
Early seronegative peripheral inflammatory arthritis is vulnerable to diagnostic inertia because external phenotype and serology may be non-anchoring and first-line imaging reports are frequently non-actionable. A pattern-based approach centered on microerosion candidates, enthesis-adjacent changes, and periarticular drivers—combined with XR-first, question-driven escalation to US-PD and selectively to MRI—can reduce uncertainty, improve report actionability, and support progression prevention while explicitly managing mimics. The primary contribution of this manuscript is an implementation-oriented synthesis: a peripheral pattern dictionary and an escalation/reporting framework designed for reproducible, clinically legible interpretation in early seronegative disease.
References
1. Colebatch AN, Edwards CJ, Østergaard M, et al. EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging of the joints in the clinical management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72(6):804-814.
2. Mandl P, Navarro-Compán V, Terslev L, et al. EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in the diagnosis and management of spondyloarthritis in clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74(7):1327-1339.
3. Subhas N, Argin M, Engel A, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Inflammatory Arthritides. J Am Coll Radiol 2023;20(5S):S20-S32.
4. Mandl P, Grunke M, Glinatsi D, et al. EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in diagnosis and management of crystal-induced arthropathies in clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 2024;83:752-759.
5. Haavardsholm EA, Aga AB, Olsen IC, et al. Ultrasound in management of rheumatoid arthritis: ARCTIC randomised controlled strategy trial. BMJ 2016;354:i4205.
6. Møller-Bisgaard S, Hørslev-Petersen K, Ejbjerg B, et al. Effect of MRI vs conventional treat-to-target strategies on disease activity remission and radiographic progression in RA: The IMAGINE-RA randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;321(5):461-472.
7. Møller-Bisgaard S, Hørslev-Petersen K, Ørnbjerg LM, et al. Long-term efficacy of a 2-year MRI treat-to-target strategy: 5-year follow-up of the IMAGINE-RA randomised trial. RMD Open 2024;10(1):e003945.
8. Wang H, Liu X, Li Z, et al. The value of high-frequency ultrasound in differentiating seronegative rheumatoid arthritis from osteoarthritis. Sci Rep 2022;12:21372.
9. Cen X, Wang Y, Chen L, et al. Musculoskeletal ultrasound for early diagnosis of seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. J Ultrasound Med 2024;43(5):897-906.
10. Funck-Brentano T, Etchepare F, Gousset J, et al. Benefits of ultrasonography in the management of early arthritis: ESPOIR cohort. Arthritis Care Res 2013;65(6):896-902.
11. Sreerangaiah D, Grayer M, Fisher BA, et al. Quantitative power Doppler US measures predict radiographic progression. Rheumatology 2016;55(1):89-93.
12. Haavardsholm EA, Bøyesen P, Østergaard M, et al. MRI findings in 84 patients with early RA: bone marrow oedema predicts erosive progression. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67(6):794-800.
13. Hetland ML, Ejbjerg B, Hørslev-Petersen K, et al. MRI bone oedema is the strongest predictor of subsequent radiographic progression (CIMESTRA). Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68(3):384-390.
14. McQueen FM, Ostendorf B. What is MRI bone oedema in rheumatoid arthritis and why does it matter? Arthritis Res Ther 2012;14(4):222.
15. Klose-Jensen R, Tello-Winczek K, Engdahl C, et al. SPECTRA: A large collaborative project for HR-pQCT research in rheumatology. Rheumatology 2020;59(12):3841-3850.
16. Hirtler L, Gmeiner A, Gasser B, et al. Erosions versus pseudoerosions in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2019;49(3):365-372.
17. Dale J, Stirling A, Zhang R, et al. Targeting ultrasound remission in early RA: results of the TaSER study. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75(6):1043-1050.
18. Naredo E, Valor L, De la Torre I, et al. Predictive value of Doppler US-detected synovitis in relation to failed tapering of biologic therapy in RA. Rheumatology 2015;54(8):1408-1414.
19. Smolen JS, Landewé RBM, Bergstra SA, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2022 update. Ann Rheum Dis 2023;82(1):3-18.
20. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, et al. 2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: ACR/EULAR collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69(9):1580-1588.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the contribution of structured reporting frameworks to the concepts presented in this review. A dedicated companion paper will address early axial and pelvic/hip imaging patterns, where lesion taxonomy, biomechanics, and modality priorities differ substantially from peripheral disease.
Conflicts of interest
The author is the developer of a deterministic structured reporting platform for musculoskeletal imaging. No external funding was received for this work, and no specific product performance claims are made.
Full Manuscript PDF
Supplementary Appendices
Supplementary materials submitted with this manuscript are available below.
© 2026 Olga Goodman. All rights reserved.
No reproduction, redistribution, or derivative reuse without written permission, except for brief quotation with attribution where permitted by law.
Добавить комментарий