Synovitis detection in rheumatology: a systematic review and meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging
Keywords:
Ultrasonography, Magnetic resonance imaging, Synovitis, Contrast media, Microbubbles, Microbubble contrast, Rheumatoid arthritis, Juvenile idiopathic arthritisAbstract
BACKGROUND: Synovial tissue proliferation in the bare area of the joint is an early indicator of synovitis. Vascularization of the pannus helps differentiate between inactive and inflammatory processes, directly impacting therapeutic management. Synovitis can be diagnosed through clinical assessment, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); however, uncertainty remains regarding the optimal imaging modality.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the accuracy of ultrasonography with microbubble contrast and contrast-enhanced MRI in diagnosing synovitis, irrespective of its etiology. In addition, the study aimed to determine the joints that were most accurately assessed for synovitis using microbubble ultrasound.
METHODS Electronic searches were conducted in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and Web of Science up to February 8, 2025, with additional screening of reference lists. Studies assessing diagnostic accuracy or detection rates of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced MRI for synovitis were included without restrictions on language or publication status. Two studies were selected after quality assessment using QUADAS-2, and eight studies were assessed using the RTI item bank methodology.
RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracies of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (87%) and contrast-enhanced MRI (87.7%) were comparable. For knee evaluation, CEUS showed a higher detection rate (93.8%) than MRI (82.9%). Across different joints and underlying diseases, the detection rates were 81.9% and 88.3% for contrast-enhanced MRI. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, MRI demonstrated a higher detection rate (96.2%) compared with ultrasound (67.2%). These findings indicate a similar overall diagnostic performance, although the limited number of included studies restricted generalizability.
CONCLUSION: CEUS demonstrated diagnostic accuracy comparable to contrast-enhanced MRI, except in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Given its low cost, portability, and favorable safety profile, CEUS may serve as a useful screening or follow-up tool for synovitis, pending validation in larger multicenter studies.
Downloads
References
Sommer OJ, Kladosek A, Weiler V, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis: a practical guide to state-of-the-art imaging, image interpretation, and clinical implications. RadioGraphics. 2005;25(2):381–98. PMID: 15798057; https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.252045111.
Hau M, Schultz H, Tony HP, et al. Evaluation of pannus and vascularization of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints in rheumatoid arthritis by high-resolution ultrasound (multidimensional linear array). Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42(11):2303–8. PMID: 10555024; https://doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(199911)42:11<2303::AID-ANR7>3.0.CO;2-4.
Wakefield RJ, Kong KO, Conaghan PG, et al. The role of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in early rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003;21(5) (Suppl 31):S42–S9. Available from: https://www.clinexprheumatol.org/abstract.asp?a=2188.
Ohrndorf S, Hensch A, Naumann L, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography is more sensitive than grayscale and power Doppler ultrasonography compared to MRI in therapy monitoring of rheumatoid arthritis patients. Ultraschall Med. 2011;32 (Suppl 2):E38–E44. PMID: 22052070; https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1281770.
Tămaş MM, Bondor CI, Rednic N, Ghib LJ, Rednic S. The evolution of time-intensity curves of contrast enhanced ultrasonography in early arthritis patients with wrist involvement. Med Ultrason. 2015;17(3):345–51. PMID: 26343084; https://doi.org/10.11152/mu.2013.2066.173.mmt.
Solivetti FM, Elia F, Teoli M, et al. Role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in early diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis. Dermatology. 2010;220(1):25–31. PMID: 19907135; https://doi.org/10.1159/000258049.
Klauser A, Demharter J, De Marchi A, et al; IACUS study group. Contrast enhanced gray-scale sonography in assessment of joint vascularity in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the IACUS study group. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(12):2404–10. PMID: 16132921; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2884-9.
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36. PMID: 22007046; https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.
Margulis AV, Pladevall M, Riera-Guardia N, et al. Quality assessment of observational studies in a drug-safety systematic review, comparison of two tools: the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the RTI item bank. Clin Epidemiol. 2014;6:359–68. PMID: 25336990; PMCID: PMC4199858; https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S66677.
Viswanathan M, Berkman ND. Development of the RTI item bank on risk of bias and precision of observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(2):163–78. PMID: 21959223; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.05.008.
Kleffel T, Demharter J, Wohlgemuth W, et al. Vergleich von kontrastmittelunterstützter Low-Mechanical-Index(Low-MI)-Sonographie und nativer B-Mode-Sonographie bei der Differenzierung von Synovitis und Gelenkerguss bei Patienten mit rheumatoider Arthritis [Comparison of contrast-enhanced low mechanical index (Low MI) sonography and unenhanced B-mode sonography for the differentiation between synovitis and joint effusion in patients with rheumatoid arthritis]. ROFO. 2005;177(6):835–41. PMID: 15902633; https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-858194.
Song IH, Althoff CE, Hermann KG, et al. Knee osteoarthritis: efficacy of a new method of contrast-enhanced musculoskeletal ultrasonography in detection of synovitis in patients with knee osteoarthritis in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67(1):19–25. Erratum in: Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(1):156. PMID: 19957383; https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2006.067462.
Szkudlarek M, Court-Payen M, Strandberg C, et al. Contrast-enhanced power Doppler ultrasonography of the metacarpophalangeal joints in rheumatoid arthritis. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(1):163–8. PMID: 12541125; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-002-1459-2.
Magarelli N, Guglielmi G, Di Matteo L, et al. Diagnostic utility of an echo-contrast agent in patients with synovitis using power Doppler ultrasound: a preliminary study with comparison to contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(6):1039–46. PMID: 11419150; https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300000650.
Stramare R, Coran A, Faccinetto A, et al. MR and CEUS monitoring of patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological agents: a preliminary study. Radiol Med. 2014;119(6):422–31. PMID: 24347286; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-013-0369-5.
Wamser G, Bohndorf K, Vollert K, Bücklein W, Schalm J. Power Doppler sonography with and without echo-enhancing contrast agent and contrast-enhanced MRI for the evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis of the shoulder joint: differentiation between synovitis and joint effusion. Skelet Radiol. 2003;32(6):351–9. PMID: 12719926; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-003-0632-2.
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):804–14. PMID: 23520036; https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-203158.
Ostergaard M, Hansen M, Stoltenberg M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-determined synovial membrane volume as a marker of disease activity and a predictor of progressive joint destruction in the wrists of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42(5):918–29. PMID: 10323447; https://doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(199905)42:5<918::AID-ANR10>3.0.CO;2-2.
Dieppe P, Cushnaghan J, Young P, Kirwan J. Prediction of the progression of joint space narrowing in osteoarthritis of the knee by bone scintigraphy. Ann Rheum Dis. 1993;52(8):557–63. PMID: 8215615; https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.52.8.557.
Dougados M, Gueguen A, Nguyen M, et al. Longitudinal radiologic evaluation of osteoarthritis of the knee. J Rheumatol. 1992;19(3):378–84. PMID: 1578451.
Ayral X, Ravaud P, Bonvarlet JP, et al. Arthroscopic evaluation of post-traumatic patellofemoral chondropathy. J Rheumatol. 1999;26(5):1140–7. PMID: 10332981.
Carias CM, Vieira FS, Giordano CV, Zucchi P. Exceptional circumstance drug dispensing: history and expenditures of the Brazilian Ministry of Health. Rev Saude Publica. 2011;45(2):233–40. PMID: 21412568; https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102011000200001.
Lorusso A, Quaia E, Poillucci G, et al. Activity-based cost analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) related to the diagnostic impact in focal liver lesion characterisation. Insights Imaging. 2015;6(4):499–508. PMID: 25953127; https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-015-0402-4.
Hunt CH, Hartman RP, Hesley GK. Frequency and severity of adverse effects of iodinated and gadolinium contrast materials: retrospective review of 456,930 doses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(4):1124–7. PMID: 19770337; https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2520.
Dietrich CF, Ignee A, Hocke M, et al. Pitfalls and artefacts using contrast enhanced ultrasound. Z Gastroenterol. 2011;49(3):350–6. PMID: 21391167; https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1245851.
Gulani V, Calamante F, Shellock FG, Kanal E, Reeder SB; International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Gadolinium deposition in the brain: summary of evidence and recommendations. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(7):564–70. PMID: 28653648; https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30158-8.
Hu C, Feng Y, Huang P, Jin J. Adverse reactions after the use of SonoVue contrast agent: Characteristics and nursing care experience. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(44):e17745. PMID: 31689827; https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000017745.
Șerban O, Fodor D, Papp I, et al. Reasons for discordances between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the ankle, hindfoot and heel of the patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Med Ultrason. 2019;21(4):405–13. PMID: 31765448; https://doi.org/10.11152/mu-2304.
Harvey CJ, Blomley MJ, Eckersley RJ, Cosgrove DO. Developments in ultrasound contrast media. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(4):675–89. PMID: 11354767; https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300000624.
Takase-Minegishi K, Horita N, Kobayashi K, et al. Diagnostic test accuracy of ultrasound for synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2018;57(1):49–58. PMID: 28340066; https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kex036.
Jaganathan S, Goyal A, Gadodia A, et al. Spectrum of synovial pathologies: a pictorial assay. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2012;41(1):30–42. PMID: 22085660; https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2011.07.002.
Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG, et al; National Arthritis Data Workgroup. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(1):26–35. PMID: 18163497; https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23176.
Guo Q, Wang Y, Xu D, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis: pathological mechanisms and modern pharmacologic therapies. Bone Res. 2018;6:15. PMID: 29736302; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41413-018-0016-9.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 São Paulo Medical Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
