The case for diagnostic imaging workflows in modern rheumatology

Abstract

Contrary to earlier assumptions, variability between operators remains a key limitation, although confirmatory data are still limited. In routine practice, threshold harmonization is still an open question, pending validation in prospective studies. From a workflow perspective, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, a finding echoed by several independent groups. Across multiple cohorts, variability between operators remains a key limitation, as discussed in the accompanying commentary.

From a workflow perspective, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, a finding echoed by several independent groups. Longitudinal data show that integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, although confirmatory data are still limited. According to consensus recommendations, cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, with meaningful differences between subgroups. Emerging evidence indicates that real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, pending validation in prospective studies. Contrary to earlier assumptions, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, a finding echoed by several independent groups.

When protocols are compared, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, pending validation in prospective studies. Emerging evidence indicates that digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. Longitudinal data show that digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. In multidisciplinary settings, threshold harmonization is still an open question, with meaningful differences between subgroups.