The aim of this global collaboration was to develop a consensual set of items for the analysis of synovial biopsies in clinical practice and translational research through the EULAR Synovitis Study Group (ESSG) and OMERACT Synovial Tissue Biopsy Group.
Participants were consulted through a modified Delphi method. Three sequential rounds occurred over 12 months. Members were sent a written questionnaire containing items divided into two parts. Items were identified and formulated based on a scoping review. The first part of the questionnaire referred to synovial biopsies in clinical practice including five subsections, and the second part to translational research with six subsections. Every participant was asked to score each item on a 5-point Likert scale. Items with a median score above 3.5 and a ≥ 70% agreement were selected for the next round. The last round was conducted orally at EULAR in June 2017.
Twenty-seven participants from 19 centers were contacted by email. Twenty participants from 17 centers answered. Response rates for next rounds were 100%. For the first part relating to clinical practice, 20/44 items (45.5%) were selected. For the second part relating to translational research, 18/43 items (41.9%) were selected for the final set.
We herein propose a consensual set of analysis items to be used for synovial biopsies conducted in clinical practice and translational research.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify causes of false-positives in ultrasound scanning of synovial/tenosynovial/bursal inflammation and provide corresponding imaging examples.
METHODS: We first performed systematic literature review to identify previously reported causes of false-positives. We next determined causes of false-positives and corresponding example images for educational material through Delphi exercises and discussion by 15 experts who were an instructor and/or a lecturer in the 2013 advanced course for musculoskeletal ultrasound organized by Japan College of Rheumatology Committee for the Standardization of Musculoskeletal Ultrasonography.
RESULTS: Systematic literature review identified 11 articles relevant to sonographic false-positives of synovial/tenosynovial inflammation. Based on these studies, 21 candidate causes of false-positives were identified in the consensus meeting. Of these items, 11 achieved a predefined consensus (≥ 80%) in Delphi exercise and were classified as follows: (I) Gray-scale assessment [(A) non-specific synovial findings and (B) normal anatomical structures which can mimic synovial lesions due to either their low echogenicity or anisotropy]; (II) Doppler assessment [(A) Intra-articular normal vessels and (B) reverberation)]. Twenty-four corresponding examples with 49 still and 23 video images also achieved consensus.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a set of representative images that can help sonographers to understand false-positives in ultrasound scanning of synovitis and tenosynovitis.

BACKGROUND: Molecules that are released into biological fluids during matrix metabolism of articular cartilage, subchondral bone, and synovial tissue could serve as biochemical markers of the process of osteoarthritis (OA). Unfortunately, actual breakthroughs in the biochemical OA marker field are limited so far.
OBJECTIVE: By reviewing the status of commercially available biochemical OA markers according to the \"Burden of disease, Investigative, Prognostic, Efficacy of intervention, and Diagnostic\" (\"BIPED\") classification, future use of this \"BIPED\" classification is encouraged and more efficient biochemical OA marker research stimulated.
METHODS: Three electronic databases [PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE (1997-May 2009)] were searched for publications on blood and urinary biochemical markers in human primary knee and hip-OA.
METHODS: Stepwise selection of original English publications describing human studies on blood or urinary biochemical markers in primary knee or hip-OA was performed. Selected articles were fully read to determine whether biochemical markers were investigated on performance within any of the \"BIPED\" categories. Eighty-four relevant publications were identified.
METHODS: Data from relevant publications were tabulated according to the \"BIPED\" classification. Individual analyses within a publication were summarized in general \"BIPED\" scores.
RESULTS: An uneven distribution of scores on biochemical marker performance and heterogeneity among the publications complicated direct comparison of individual biochemical markers. Comparison of categories of biochemical markers was therefore performed instead. In general, biochemical markers of cartilage degradation were investigated most extensively and performed well in comparison with other categories of biochemical markers. Biochemical markers of bone metabolism performed less adequately. Biochemical markers of synovial tissue metabolism were not investigated extensively, but performed quite well.
CONCLUSIONS: Specific biochemical markers and categories of biochemical markers as well as their nature, origin and metabolism, need further investigation. International standardization of future investigations should be pursued to obtain more high-quality, homogenous data on the full spectrum of biochemical OA markers.