Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 7;16(4):e0248952. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248952

Correlation between Hemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound (HEAD-US) score and Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS) in patients with hemophilic arthropathy

Marcel Prasetyo 1,*, Ratna Moniqa 1, Angela Tulaar 2, Joedo Prihartono 3, Stefanus Imanuel Setiawan 1
Editor: Elizabeth S Mayne4
PMCID: PMC8026024  PMID: 33826621

Abstract

Background

Hemophilic arthropathy, a condition manifested as joint destruction due to spontaneous joint bleeding, is one complication of hemophiliac patients. Early detection and intervention may improve the outcome, in which ultrasonography can be an ideal modality with the introduction of HEAD-US (Hemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound) protocol. Studies have shown US benefit in hemophiliac patients, including its potential as an alternative for the Hemophiliac Joint Health Score (HJHS) system. However, many of the studies were conducted in countries with better management of hemophilia using prophylaxis treatment. It is unclear whether HEAD-US has a correlation with HJHS in countries using episodic treatment only, like in Indonesia.

Purpose

This study aimed to explore the correlation between HEAD-US and HJHS in hemophiliac patients with joint problems in Indonesia.

Materials and methods

A cross-sectional correlation study between HEAD-US and HJHS was performed with primary data collected from 120 hemophilic patients. US examination was performed on elbow, knee and ankle joints using the HEAD-US scoring method by a musculoskeletal radiologist. HJHS examination was conducted by a trained physiotherapist and a medical rehabilitation specialist. All examiner is member of multidisciplinary Hemophiliac Management Team in Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Results

The mean age of the participant was 9.3 (5–14) years old. The median score of HEAD-US was 8 (1–28) with most of the joint abnormalities found on the ankles. The median score of HJHS was 3 (0–35), with most joint abnormalities found on the knees. There was a moderate correlation between HEAD-US and HJHS score (p < 0.05, r = 0.65).

Conclusion

HEAD-US shows a moderate correlation to HJHS in hemophiliac patients who received episodic treatment. HEAD-US can provide additional value in the anatomical evaluation of the joint and could be complementary to HJHS in assessing the joint status in hemophilic patient

Introduction

Hemophilia is a genetically hereditary coagulopathy disease caused by factor VIII (Hemophilia A) or factor IX (hemophilia B) coagulation deficiency that occurs in 1 out of 10000 people [13]. Joint bleeding is one of the most frequent complications found mostly in the elbow, knee and ankle [4, 5]. Several modalities are used to detect these complications including radiographic and MR examination. Besides, the use of ultrasonography (US) imaging has been increasing due to its practicality, relatively low cost, and can be repeated easily in the clinical setting. US can evaluate early blood-induced joint changes such as synovial hypertrophy and cartilage defect [68]. Unfortunately, the US result highly depends on the operator’s skill [911]. A study by Martinoli et al. [12] has introduced a standardized, fast, repeatable, and simple US scoring protocol for hemophiliac joint called Hemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound (HEAD-US). This standardized method can assess multiple joints simultaneously with an excellent inter-observer agreement.

A study by Foppen et al. [13] analyzed the correlation between HEAD-US scoring and Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS), a clinical method to evaluate functional status in the hemophilic joint. This study showed a strong correlation between the HEAD-US method and HJHS scoring. However, this study was conducted on hemophilia patients who had received prophylaxis treatment. In Indonesia, most hemophiliac patients receive episodic treatment, due to financial challenges and unavailability of prophylaxis treatment [14, 15]. Therefore, many pediatric hemophiliac patients have moderate to severe joint problems. Since HEAD-US is designed to assess early hemophilic joint changes, it is not known whether it will also perform well in moderate or severe stages of joint disease, especially if we considering its correlation to HJHS. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between ultrasonography findings using the HEAD-US method and HJHS assessment scale on evaluating the musculoskeletal status of hemophilic arthropathy patients.

Materials and methods

Participants and study protocol

A cross-sectional correlation study was conducted in the Department of Radiology and Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia in Cipto Mangunkusumo National Hospital Jakarta from June until September 2016. Subjects were patients with severe hemophilia A without any sign of active joint bleeding, history of inhibitor, history of musculoskeletal surgery, tumor and trauma of the joints. A total of 20 subjects were included in the study and written informed consent was obtained from the parents and legal guardian. The study was approved by the Research Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia (No.633/UN2.F1/ETIK/2016).

Musculoskeletal assessment

US examination on the elbow, knee and ankle joints using HEAD-US protocol was performed by a radiologist consultant in musculoskeletal with at least 10-years of experience in musculoskeletal ultrasound. The examination was performed using Samsung Medison US equipment with linear array 11 MHz transducer.

HJHS examination version 2.1 was conducted by a trained physiotherapist and a medical rehabilitation specialist. All examiner is member of multidisciplinary Hemophiliac Management Team in Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital in Jakarta, Indonesia. A total of 17 patients underwent the US examination before the HJHS examination and 3 patients underwent the HJHS examination before the US examination. Both examinations were blinded and performed on the same day.

Statistical analysis

The quantitative data were analyzed statistically using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 software. The normality test was conducted with the Shapiro-Wilk test showed abnormal data distribution; therefore, the bivariate analysis using Spearman’s correlations test was done to analyze the correlation between HEAD-US and HJHS examination. The value of the correlation coefficients (r) was further classified into 0.0–0.1 indicating ‘no correlation’; 0.1–0.3 indicating ‘poor correlation’; 0.3–0.6 indicating ‘fair correlation’; 0.6–0.8 indicating ‘moderate correlation’; 0.8–0.9 indicating ‘very strong correlation’; and 0.9–1.0 indicating ‘perfect correlation’ [16].

Results

Characteristic of studied individuals

Twenty subjects were analyzed with ages ranged from 5 to 14 years old (mean age 9,35 years old). All subjects received episodic treatment. Positive gait sign was noticed in 4 subjects, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristic of subjects.

Characteristic of subjects Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Age (years)
< 10 12 60
>10 8 40
Degree of hemophilia
Severe 20 100
Mild 0 0
Treatment History
On Demand 20 100
Prophylaxis 0 0
Gait sign
Positive 4 20
Negative 16 80

From a total of 120 joints examined, the HEAD-US scored between 1–28 with a median score of 8. Generally, the ankle joint was found to be affected more severe compared to the elbow and knee joint. HJHS examination score ranged between 0–35 with a median score of 3 (Table 2 and Fig 1).

Table 2. The results of HJHS and HEAD-US examination.

Score Mean ± SD Median Min Max
HEAD-US 9.9 ± 6.7 8.0 1 28
HJHS 4.7 ± 7.6 3.0 0 35

Fig 1. The example of HEAD-US appearance on different subjects: Elbow (E1b, E2a), knee (K1, K3), and ankle (A1b, A3).

Fig 1

There is synovial hypertrophy of the anterior cubital fossa of the elbow (XX), the suprapatellar recess of the knee (XF) and the posterior of the subtalar joint (X). There is also cartilage irregularity and thinning at the femoral trochlea of the knee (large arrow) and talar dome of the ankle (small arrow).

Spearman’s test showed a statistically significant correlation between HEAD-US and HJHS with a moderate positive correlation (p-value <0.05 and r = 0.652) as shown in Fig 2.

Fig 2. Correlation between HEAD-US and HJHS.

Fig 2

Based on linear regression analysis, a linear model was obtained to predict the HJHS score based on the HEAD-US score (Eq 1).

HJHSscore=3,74+0,86xHEADUS Eq 1

Discussion

US examination using the HEAD-US method showed that the most affected joint in this study was the ankle joint. This finding was consistent with the study conducted by Oldenburg et al. [17], Altisent et al. [18] and Aisa et al. [19], which stated the ankle joint as the main target in hemophilic arthropathy before knee joint destruction happened. Early arthropathic changes can be detected with synovial hypertrophy was the most common abnormality [19]. These findings were different from the older study by Knobe and Berntorp [20], which stated that the knee joint was the most affected target joint in severe hemophilia patients who had not received any prophylaxis treatment. US examination has high sensitivity in detecting early joint changes underlying the reason why ankle abnormalities can be detected more frequently than others.

Most of the joints (57 out of 120 joint) showed grade 1 synovial hypertrophy on US examination. Some of this joint change was noted in the joint that had no history of previous bleeding. Additionally, 46 of 120 joints (38%) showed abnormalities in HEAD-US while the HJHS score remained zero. Joint bleeding likely happened in a quite small amount result in the subclinical sign that can be undetected clinically and did not result in functional disability. The ability of the US in detecting early anatomical changes before any observed clinical signs were also found in a study by Oldenburg et al. [17] Similar findings were also found by Altisent, et al. [18] with 19.8% and by Timmer, et al. [21] with 18.4% of patient showing abnormalities only in the HEAD-US. However, this study showed a higher percentage compared to the previous studies due to no prophylaxis treatments were given before.

Only 10 of 120 joints (8.3%) have positive HJHS while the HEAD-US score is 0. According to Slutier, et al. [22], HJHS positive findings such as flexion loss and crepitus without clinical complaint can be found in minor injury or anatomical variants other than the hemophilic joint. The author suggests that the HJHS score of up to 3 points should be considered as ‘normal’. In our study, subjects with 0 score on the HEAD-US and positive HJHS findings showed scores not exceeding 3 points.

Further analysis on each joint of subjects with an HJHS score of 0 showed higher positive HEAD-US finding in 21 of 40 ankle joint (67.5%), in comparison with knee joint (25%) and elbow joint (22.5%). The ankle joint may be the first joint affected due to weight-bearing activity, thus results in more anatomical changes than the knee and elbow joint.

Spearman’s correlation analysis showed a moderate correlation between HEAD-US and HJHS score for all joints (p-value < 0.05 and r value = 0.652). This result was almost similar to the study by Foppen et al. [13] which found a significant correlation coefficient of 0.7. Another study by De La Corte-Rodriguez, et al. [23] found a correlation coefficient of 0.717 and an even higher correlation was found by Timmer, et al. [21] with a correlation coefficient of 0.88. This difference is probably due to the different number of abnormalities that were found in the involved individuals. Foppen et al. [13] found abnormalities in 5 out of 63 joints in patients receiving prophylaxis treatment, while this study on patients with episodic therapy found abnormalities in 73 out of 120 joints based on HEAD-US and 37 of 120 joints based on HJHS. Linear regression analysis developed a linear model to predict the HJHS score based on the HEAD-US score (Eq 1).

Further analysis on each joint (elbow, knee, ankle) found a better correlation strength between HEAD-US and HJHS in knee joint abnormality (r = 0.51). On the other hand, correlation strength was lower in the elbow joint (r = 0.4) and ankle joint (r = 0.36).

There were limitations regarding to this study. Subjects were limited to the pediatric patients due to the limitation of the Multidisciplinary Hemophiliac Management Team of the hospital’s database which covering age group from 5 to 18 years old which make these age groups become the most available and met the inclusion criteria. HEAD-US examination was performed by a single radiologist experienced in MSK ultrasound and US was an operator dependent modality. Although previous studies had shown an excellent inter-observer agreement, it probably would be more objective if performed by more than one operator.

Conclusion

HEAD-US shows a moderate correlation to HJHS in hemophiliac patients who received episodic treatment. HEAD-US may provide additional value in detecting anatomical joint changes before any abnormalities are observed clinically, while HJHS is better in evaluating functional status. HEAD-US and HJHS will likely become more beneficial if both are performed as a complement to each other in assessing the patient with hemophilic arthropathy.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the Department of Radiology, Department of Medical Rehabilitation and Departement of Community Medicine Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia for the contribution on the facilities for the assessment of HEAD-US and HJHS.

Abbreviations

HEAD-US

Hemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound

HJHS

Hemophilia Joint Health Score

USG

Ultrasonography

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the corresponding author and Ethics Committee for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data (Ethics Committee of Faculty Medicine Universitas Indonesia and The Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine (CEEBM) FKUI-RSCM. (Contact for Ethics Committee of Faculty Medicine Universitas Indonesia: ec_fkui@yahoo.com or +62213157008).

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Pipe SW, Valentino LA. Optimizing outcomes for patients with severe haemophilia A. Haemophilia. 2007;13 (Suppl.4):1–16. 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2007.01552.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Roosendaal G, Lafeber P. Pathogenesis of haemophilic arthropathy. Haemophilia. 2006;12 Suppl 3:117–121. 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2006.01268.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bolton-Maggs PHB, Pasi KJ. Haemophilias A and B. The Lancet. 2003;361(9371):1801–1809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jansen NWD, Roosendaal G, Lafeber PJG. Understanding haemophilic arthropathy: an exploration of current open issues. British Journal of Haematology. 2008;143(5): 632–640. 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2008.07386.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Musculoskeletal complications of hemophilia. HSSJ. 2010; 6(1):37–42. 10.1007/s11420-009-9140-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Klukowska A, Czyrny Z, Laguna P, Brzewski M, Serafin-Krol MA, Rokicka-Milewska R. Correlation between clinical, radiological and ultrasonograohical image of knee joints in children with haemophilia. Haemophilia.2001;7(3):286–292. 10.1046/j.1365-2516.2001.00509.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Acharya SS, Schloss R, Dyke JP, Mintz DN, Christos P, Dimichele DM, et al. Power Doppler sonography in the diagnosis of hemophilic synovitis–a promising tool. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis.2008;6(12):2055–2061. 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.03160.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Melchiorre D, Linari S, Innocenti M, Biscoglio I, Toigo M, Cerinic MM, et al. Ultrasound detects joint damage and bleeding in haemophilic arthropathy: a proposal of a score. Haemophilia. 2011;17(1):112–117. 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02380.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Doria AS. State-of-the-art imaging techniques for the evaluation of haemophilic arthropathy: present and future. Haemophilia. 2010; 16 Suppl 5:107–114. 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02307.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sigl-Kraetzig M, Seuser A, Blaubeuren, Bonn. Ultrasonography of joints and correlation with function in haemophilic arthropathy–interim results of a clinical pilot trial (HamarthroSonoPilot). Presented at ECR 2015. European Congress of Radiology; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Di Minno MND, Jimenez-Yuste V. Imaging techniques for the evaluation of haemophilic arthropathy: a focus on ultrasound. European Journal of Haematology. 2015; 95 Suppl. 78:1–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Martinoli C, Alberighi ODC, Di Minno G, Graziano E, Molinari AC, Pasta G, et al. Development and definition of a simplified scanning procedure and scoring method for Haemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound (HEAD-US). Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 2013;109(6):1170–1179. 10.1160/TH12-11-0874 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Foppen W, Van der Schaaf IC, Fischer K. Value of routine ultrasound in detecting early joint changes in children with haemopilia using the “Haemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound” protocol. Haemophilia. 2016;22(1):121–125. 10.1111/hae.12769 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sari TT, Chozie NA, Gatot D, Tulaar ABM, Dharma R, Sukrisman L, et al. Clinical and ultrasound joint outcomes in severe hemophilia A children receiving episodic treatment in Indonesian National Hemophilia Treatment Center. Med J Indones. 2017;26:47–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chozie NA, Primacakti F, Gatot D, Setiabudhy RD, Tulaar ABM, Prasetyo M. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of 12‐month low‐dose factor VIII tertiary prophylaxis vs on‐demand treatment in severe haemophilia A children. Haemophilia. 2019;00:1–7. 10.1111/hae.13770 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Akoglu H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med. 2018;18(3):91–93. 10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Oldenburg J. Optimal treatment strategies for hemophilia: achievements and limitations of current prophylactic regimens. Blood. 2015; 125(13):2038–2044. 10.1182/blood-2015-01-528414 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Altisent C, Martorell M, Crespo A, Casas L, Torrents C, Parra R. Early prophylaxis in children with severe haemophilia A: clinical and ultrasound imaging outcomes. Haemophilia. 2016;22(2):218–224. 10.1111/hae.12792 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Aisa CS, Cuesta JFL, Martinez AR, Mosteirin F, Munoz AI, Calvete MA, et al. Comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and follow-up of joint lesions in patients with haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2014;20(1): e51–57. 10.1111/hae.12268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Knobe K, Berntorp E. Haemophilia and joint disease: pathophysiology, evaluation, and management. J Comorb.2011;1: 51–59. 10.15256/joc.2011.1.2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Timmer MA, Foppen W, Schutgens RE, Pisters MF, Fischer K. Comparing findings of routine Haemophilia Joint Health Score and Haemophlia Early Arthropathy Detection with UltraSound assessments in adults with haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2017. March;23(2):e141–e143. 10.1111/hae.13147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sluiter D, Foppen W, de Kleijn P, Fischer K. Haemophilia Joint Health Score in healthy adults playing sports. Haemophilia. 2014;209(2):282–286. 10.1111/hae.12290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.De la Corte-Rodriguez H, Rodriguez-Merchan EC, Alvarez-Roman MT, Martin-Salces M, Martinoli C, Jimenez-Yuste V. HJHS 2.1 and HEAD-US assessment in the hemophilic joints: How do their findings compare? Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2020. September;31(6):387–392. 10.1097/MBC.0000000000000934 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Elizabeth S Mayne

13 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-29192

Correlation between Hemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound (HEAD-US) Score and Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS) in Patients with Hemophilic Arthropathy

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Prasetyo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers felt that this paper showed some merit although it would benefit from minor corrections. A concern was that the population sampled (adolescents) may not be the highest risk for hemarthropathy and the care described (episodic rather than prophylactic factor replacement) no longer represent standard of care. In addition, the minor points raised regarding the use of portable ultrasonography should be considered.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 28 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Elizabeth S. Mayne, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments:

Both reviewers felt that this paper showed some merit although it would benefit from minor corrections. A concern was that the population sampled (adolescents) and the care described (episodic rather than prophylactic factor replacement) no longer represent standard of care. In addition, the minor points raised regarding the use of portable ultrasonography should be considered.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Correlation between Hemophilia Early Arthroplasty Detection with Ultrasound (HEADUS) Score and Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS) in Patients with Hemophilic Arthropathy

In this single-centre, cross-sectional study, the authors evaluated the correlation between the HJHS and HEAD-US in twenty pediatric and adolescent patients with severe hemophilia using already established protocols. A trained physiotherapist evaluated only elbows, knees and ankles. The ultrasound and HJHS were done the same day of the visit and showed a correlation of 0.65.

Although this work has already been performed elsewhere, validation of this correlation in the setting of the authors geographic location may add value to the existing body of knowledge. This report could be improved by addressing the following queries.

1. The introduction should include the rationale for doing this correlation assessment in patients receiving episodic treatment when it is not the standard of care in hemophilia in 2020 anymore. How is this knowledge going to be translated into clinical practice?

2. The study population is adolescent and pediatric patients who often have minimum arthropathy. Is there a rationale for doing the study in this group only and not in adults?

3. The researchers should include the standard shortcomings of ultrasound examination in the introduction or discussion as the study shortcomings.

4. Given that the ultrasound was done in a hospital setting and the expanding role of portable ultrasound, the authors should point out the role of portable ultrasound in their setting.

5. In the methods, it is unclear how the physiotherapists/ rehabilitation specialists were trained and what their intra-individual and inter-individual coefficient of variation was.

6. The discussion should include the strengths and weaknesses of the study.

7. In the abstract, reference is made to joint bleed and hemarthrosis, which mean the same thing.

8. The reference page numbers should be reviewed for consistency, some have single digit and others have two digit last page numbers.

9. Can the authors comment on their statement that a correlation of 0.65 is regarded as a strong correlation in hemophilia?

Reviewer #2: It is my opinion that the authors have demonstared a relatively easy reproducible way of assesng joint involvement in Hemophilia and the paper should be published

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Johnny Mahlangu

Reviewer #2: Yes: BF Jacobson

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 7;16(4):e0248952. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248952.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Jan 2021

RE: ACADEMIC REBUTTAL LETTER

Dear PLoS One Editors and Reviewers,

As you are aware, I have submitted a research manuscript titled “Correlation between Hemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound (HEAD-US) Score and Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS) in Patients with Hemophilic Arthropathy” in the online editorial manager of the PLoS One a while ago. The manuscript needs revision which mainly focuses on:

- Adding specific information on the rationale for doing this correlation assessment in patients receiving episodic treatment when it is not the standard of care in hemophilia in 2020, the rationale for doing the study in adolescent and paediatric patients group only and not in adults, how the physiotherapists/ rehabilitation specialists were trained and what their intra-individual and inter-individual coefficient of variation was and further explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of the study.

- Further correction on the reference page numbers, abstract, and degree of correlation in results and discussion.

Besides, we would also answer the reviewer questions related to the study stated in the comments to the author:

1. The introduction should include the rationale for doing this correlation assessment in patients receiving episodic treatment when it is not the standard of care in hemophilia in 2020 anymore. How is this knowledge going to be translated into clinical practice?

Answer: we already revised the introduction regarding the reason why the subjects receiving episodic treatment. In Indonesia, most hemophiliac patients receive episodic treatment, due to financial challenges and unavailability of prophylaxis treatment.

2. The study population is adolescent and pediatric patients who often have minimum arthropathy. Is there a rationale for doing the study in this group only and not in adults?

Answer: There were not many studies that include pediatric subjects exclusively. Besides, subjects were limited to the pediatric patients due to the limitation of the Multidisciplinary Hemophiliac Management Team of the hospital’s database which covering age group from 5 to 18 years old which make these age groups become the most available and met the inclusion criteria.

3. The researchers should include the standard shortcomings of ultrasound examination in the introduction or discussion as the study shortcomings.

Answer: The shortcoming of US was operator dependent and already mentioned in the limitation of the study in discussion.

4. Given that the ultrasound was done in a hospital setting and the expanding role of portable ultrasound, the authors should point out the role of portable ultrasound in their setting.

Answer: The portable US was not widely available in Indonesia. However, if it is available, the portable US could be one alternative modality in order to assess the HEAD-US.

5. In the methods, it is unclear how the physiotherapists/ rehabilitation specialists were trained and what their intra-individual and inter-individual coefficient of variation was.

Answer: There were no data regarding intra and inter-individual coefficient of variation between the specialists.

6. The discussion should include the strengths and weaknesses of the study.

Answer: Already added in the discussion section.

7. In the abstract, reference is made to joint bleed and hemarthrosis, which mean the same thing.

Answer: Already revised.

8. The reference page numbers should be reviewed for consistency, some have single digit and others have two digit last page numbers.

Answer: Already revised.

9. Can the authors comment on their statement that a correlation of 0.65 is regarded as a strong correlation in hemophilia?

Answer: Already revised. (Moderate)

We also remove the figures/ from within your manuscript file and mention table 2 in the text.

Based on these suggestions, we have revised the manuscript according to the reviews by adding additional information on the introduction, methods, results and discussion section. Please find the attached revised manuscript and figure file in the online platform. Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to me at prasetyo.ui.ac@gmail.com.

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the corresponding author and need the Ethics Committee approval (there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, due to potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data (Ethics Committee of Faculty Medicine Universitas Indonesia and The Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine (CEEBM) FKUI-RSCM (contact for Ethics Committee of Faculty Medicine Universitas Indonesia: ec_fkui@yahoo.com or +62213157008)

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Sincerely,

Marcel Prasetyo, M.D., Ph.D.

Decision Letter 1

Elizabeth S Mayne

9 Mar 2021

Correlation between Hemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound (HEAD-US) Score and Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS) in Patients with Hemophilic Arthropathy

PONE-D-20-29192R1

Dear Dr. Prasetyo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Elizabeth S. Mayne, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Johnny Mahlangu

Acceptance letter

Elizabeth S Mayne

11 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-29192R1

Correlation between Hemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound (HEAD-US) Score and Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS) in Patients with Hemophilic Arthropathy

Dear Dr. Prasetyo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Elizabeth S. Mayne

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the corresponding author and Ethics Committee for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data (Ethics Committee of Faculty Medicine Universitas Indonesia and The Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine (CEEBM) FKUI-RSCM. (Contact for Ethics Committee of Faculty Medicine Universitas Indonesia: ec_fkui@yahoo.com or +62213157008).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES