ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2001
A 10 year retrospective comparison of the diagnostic usefulness of synovial fluid and synovial biopsy examination.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound-Guided Synovial Biopsy in Chronic Knee Monoarthritis: A Case Series Highlighting Its Diagnostic Value.Cureus · 2026Article
- Aggregation-Induced Emission Luminogen: Role in Biopsy for Precision Medicine.Chemical reviews · 2024Review
- Clinical Applications of Synovial Biopsy.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Review
- [Stage-dependent arthroscopic treatment of knee joint infections].Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2013Article
- [Etiology and classification of septic coxitis].Der Unfallchirurg · 2012Article
- Associations between proinflammatory cytokines in the synovial fluid and radiographic grading and pain-related scores in 47 consecutive patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsSynovial fluid examination is thought to be the pathological investigation of choice in most joint disorders, with only a few specific conditions necessitating biopsy, although no evidence based studies are available to support this belief. This study sought to investigate the validity of this assumption.
methodsOne hundred and three cases in which synovial fluid aspiration and synovial biopsy had both been performed at arthroscopy were studied. The amount of diagnostically useful information produced by each investigation was assessed.
resultsIn most cases, both investigations provided the same amount of information and were generally equally specific or equally non-specific. Overall, the biopsy provided more information than the fluid in 29% of cases and vice versa in 18%. When only those cases in which both tests were adequate were considered, the biopsy provided more specific information than the fluid in a small number (9%) of cases, but these cases could not be predicted.
conclusionThe diagnostic usefulness of a biopsy approximates and occasionally exceeds that of a fluid. In the arthroscopic situation, the main advantage of performing both tests is that it provides a "failsafe mechanism" for the rare occasions when one of the samples is inadequate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.