Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 29;14(15):5334.
doi: 10.3390/jcm14155334.

Diagnostic Accuracy and Concordance of Standardized vs. Non-Standardized Joint Physical Examination for Assessing Disease Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Paired Comparison Using Ultrasound as Reference Standard

Affiliations

Diagnostic Accuracy and Concordance of Standardized vs. Non-Standardized Joint Physical Examination for Assessing Disease Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Paired Comparison Using Ultrasound as Reference Standard

Yimy F Medina et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Objective: Physical joint examination is fundamental in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) assessment. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and agreement between standardized and non-standardized physical joint examinations in RA patients using musculoskeletal ultrasound as the reference standard. Methods: We assessed the joints for tenderness and swelling, calculating sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Musculoskeletal ultrasound was used as the reference standard, with adjustment for imperfect reference bias. Agreement between the methods was evaluated using the average kappa coefficient. Results: A total of 1496 joints were evaluated. Without adjustment for imperfect reference bias, standardized examination showed higher sensitivity for detecting pain and swelling than non-standardized examination. Specificity was similar for pain but higher for swelling in standardized examination. After bias adjustment, standardized examination sensitivity improved for pain (93.8% vs. 77.3%; 95% CI: 0.14-0.19) and swelling (91.9% vs. 60.0%; 95% CI: 0.29-0.34). Tenderness specificity remained comparable (standardized examination: 75.4%, non-standardized examination: 76.3%), while the non-standardized examination maintained superior swelling specificity (85.7% vs. 77.1%). Standardized joint examination demonstrated significantly higher concordance than non-standardized assessment in evaluating joint tenderness; standardized assessment yielded significantly greater average kappa coefficients under both false-positive-prioritized (0.44 vs. 0.37; p = 0.01) and false-negative-prioritized scenarios (0.59 vs. 0.45; p < 0.0001). For joint swelling, standardized evaluation showed significantly higher concordance when false negatives were considered more critical (0.59 vs. 0.37; p < 0.0001), whereas differences under false-positive prioritization were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Standardization of the physical joint examination significantly improves diagnostic accuracy and agreement in detecting joint tenderness and swelling in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Implementing a standardized physical examination protocol may enhance disease activity diagnosis and optimize clinical management of RA.

Keywords: concordance; diagnostic accuracy; disease activity; flare; joint physical examination; musculoskeletal ultrasound; rheumatoid arthritis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Yimy F Medina reports receiving grants from the Pan American League of Associations of Rheumatology (PANLAR) during the study. PANLAR had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript writing, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. In addition, no external funding or industry support was provided for the purchase of ultrasound equipment, and no financial or personal relationships could influence the interpretation of the results. This research was conducted as part of a doctoral project in Clinical Epidemiology. Yimy F. Medina (Reference Code FM-CIE-0837-20).

Similar articles

References

    1. Di Matteo A., Bathon J.M., Emery P. Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 2023;402:2019–2033. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01525-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bongartz T., Nannini C., Medina-Velasquez Y.F., Achenbach S.J., Crowson C.S., Ryu J.H., Vassallo R., Gabriel S.E., Matteson E.L. Incidence and mortality of interstitial lung disease in rheumatoid arthritis—A population-based study. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62:1583–1591. doi: 10.1002/art.27405. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gibofsky A. Overview of epidemiology, pathophysiology, and diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Am. J. Manag. Care. 2012;18((Suppl. S13)):S295–S302. - PubMed
    1. Dwyer K.A., Coty M.B., Smith C.A., Dulemba S., Wallston K.A. A comparison of two methods of assessing disease activity in the joints. Nurs. Res. 2001;50:214–221. doi: 10.1097/00006199-200107000-00005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cheung P.P., Ruyssen-Witrand A., Gossec L., Paternotte S., Le Bourlout C., Mazieres M., Dougados M. Reliability of patient self-evaluation of swollen and tender joints in rheumatoid arthritis: A comparison study with ultrasonography, physician, and nurse assessments. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62:1112–1119. doi: 10.1002/acr.20178. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources