Assessing the Reliability of the OMERACT Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Scoring System for Temporomandibular Joints (JAMRIS-TMJ)

Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains the most comprehensive modality to assess juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)-related inflammation and osteochondral damage in the temporomandibular joints (TMJ). This study tested the reliability of a new JIA MRI scoring system for TMJ (JAM...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mirkamal Tolend, Andrea S. Doria, Arthur B. Meyers, Tore A. Larheim, Shelly Abramowicz, Julien Aguet, Simone Appenzeller, Linda Z. Arvidsson, Lauren W. Averill, Brian M. Feldman, Saurabh Guleria, Emilio J. Inarejos Clemente, Jacob L. Jaremko, Thitiporn Junhasavasdikul, Thekla von Kalle, Eva Kirkhus, Bernd Koos, Elka Miller, Rahim Moineddin, Jyoti Panwar, Zachary S. Peacock, Cory M. Resnick, Marion A. van Rossum, Jennifer Stimec, George Tomlinson, Nikolay Tzaribachev, Christian J. Kellenberger
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2021-09-01
Series:Journal of Clinical Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/18/4047
Description
Summary:Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains the most comprehensive modality to assess juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)-related inflammation and osteochondral damage in the temporomandibular joints (TMJ). This study tested the reliability of a new JIA MRI scoring system for TMJ (JAMRIS-TMJ) and the impact of variations in calibration and reader specialty. Thirty-one MRI exams of bilateral TMJs were scored independently using the JAMRIS-TMJ by 20 readers consisting of radiologists and non-radiologist clinicians in three reading groups, with or without a calibrating atlas and/or tutorial. The inter-reader reliability in the multidisciplinary cohort assessed by the generalizability coefficient was 0.61–0.67 for the inflammatory and 0.66–0.74 for the damage domain. The atlas and tutorial did not improve agreement within radiologists, but improved the agreement between radiologist and non-radiologist groups. Agreements between different calibration levels were 0.02 to 0.08 lower by the generalizability coefficient compared to agreement within calibration levels; agreement between specialty groups was 0.04 to 0.10 lower than within specialty groups. Averaging two radiologists raised the reliability above 0.8 for both domains. Therefore, the reliability of JAMRIS-TMJ was moderate-to-good depending on the presence of specialty and calibration differences. The atlas and tutorial are necessary to improve reliability when the reader cohort consists of multiple specialties.
ISSN:2077-0383