Torralba, Karina D.

ObjectiveNot much is known regarding musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) practices of rheumatologists in the United States. We sought to determine the current use of MSUS among past participants of the Ultrasound School of North American Rheumatologists (USSONAR) training program and, by extension, MSUS‐practicing rheumatologists and to understand barriers to its MSUS use.MethodsAn online survey was sent to 374 participants in the eight‐month USSONAR blended course (Fundamentals in Musculoskeletal Ultrasound and Train the Trainer) between 2009 and 2020. Each respondent had a unique identifier linked to their total number of submitted practice scans and examination scores during training.ResultsThe survey response rate was 28.1% (105 of 374), comprising 82% adult and 18% pediatric rheumatologists. Of the respondents, 71% were MSUS certified: 86.7% performed and/or interpreted diagnostic MSUS, 81.0% performed/interpreted procedural MSUS, 59.8% billed for at least 50% of diagnostic studies, and 78.8% billed for at least 50% of procedural studies. The top reasons for not doing diagnostic and procedural ultrasonography were lack of administrative support and limited time, respectively. For 25% of diagnostic ultrasonography and 12.9% of procedural ultrasonography, billing was done <50% of the time. Of the respondents, 78.0% reported that USSONAR training made them better rheumatologists.ConclusionMost USSONAR‐trained rheumatologists are certified, practicing both diagnostic and procedural MSUS and billing for most of their work. However, a substantial number of studies are not being billed due to time constraints, limited administrative support, and legal liability. Participants agreed that USSONAR training made them better rheumatologists.

Objectives To analyse the amount, reporting and handling of missing data, approach to intention-to-treat (ITT) principle application and sensitivity analysis utilisation in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To assess the trend in such reporting 10 years apart (2006 and 2016). Methods Parallel group drug therapy RA RCTs with a clinical primary endpoint. Results 176 studies enrolling a median of 160 (IQR 62–339) patients were eligible. In terms of actual analysis: 81 (46%) RCTs conducted ITT, 42 (23.9%) conducted modified ITT while 53 (30.1%) conducted non-ITT analysis. Only 58 of 97 (59.8%) RCTs reporting an ITT analysis actually performed it. The median (IQR) numbers of participants completing the trial and included in analysis for primary outcome were 86% (74%–91%) and 100% (97.1%–100%), respectively. 53 (32.7%) and 65 (40.1%) RCTs had >20% and 10%–20% missing primary outcome data, respectively. Missing data handling was unreported by 58 of 171 (33.9%) RCTs. When reported, vast majority used simple imputation methods. No significant trend towards improved reporting was seen between 2006 and 2016. Sensitivity analysis numerically improved from 2006 to 2016 (14.7% vs 21.4%). Conclusions There is significant discrepancy in the reported and the actual performed analysis in RA drug therapy RCTs. Nearly one-third of RCTs had >20% missing data. The reporting and methods of missing data handling remain inadequate with high usage of non-preferred simple imputation methods. Sensitivity analysis utilisation was low. No trend towards better missing data reporting and handling was seen.