Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25957606›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2016

Diagnosis and classification of chondral knee injuries: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopy.

Marcus Vinicius Danieli, João Paulo Fernandes Guerreiro, Alexandre deOliveira Queiroz, Hamilton daRosa Pereira, Susi Tagima, Marcelo Garcia Marini, Daniele Cristina Cataneo

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. [Predictors of Knee Replacement Following Meniscal Tear Arthroscopy: a 7-Year Risk Prediction Model].Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marcus Vinicius DanieliUniorte - Hospital de Ortopedia, Antonio Pisicchio, 155, apto 1402, Londrina, PR, CEP 86040-482, Brazil. mvdanieli@hotmail.com.
João Paulo Fernandes GuerreiroUniorte - Hospital de Ortopedia, Antonio Pisicchio, 155, apto 1402, Londrina, PR, CEP 86040-482, Brazil.
Alexandre deOliveira QueirozUniorte - Hospital de Ortopedia, Antonio Pisicchio, 155, apto 1402, Londrina, PR, CEP 86040-482, Brazil.
Hamilton daRosa PereiraFaculdade de Medicina de Botucatu - UNESP, Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
Susi TagimaUltramed, Londrina, PR, Brazil.
Marcelo Garcia MariniUltramed, Londrina, PR, Brazil.
Daniele Cristina CataneoFaculdade de Medicina de Botucatu - UNESP, Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
Universidade Estadual de Londrina · BRUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of patients undergoing knee arthroscopy for chondral lesions. The hypothesis was that MRI displays low sensitivity in the diagnosis and classification of chondral injuries.

methodsA total of 83 knees were evaluated. The MRIs were performed using the same machine (GE SIGNA HDX 1.45 T). The MRI results were compared with the arthroscopy findings, and an agreement analysis was performed. Thirty-eight of the 83 MRI exams were evaluated by another radiologist for inter-observer agreement analysis. These analyses were performed using the kappa (κ) coefficient.

resultsThe highest incidence of chondral injury was in the patella (14.4 %). The κ coefficient was 0.31 for the patellar surface; 0.38 for the trochlea; 0.46 for the medial femoral condyle; 0.51 for the lateral femoral condyle; and 0.19 for the lateral plateau. After dividing the injuries into two groups (ICRS Grades 0-II and Grades III and IV), the following κ coefficients were obtained as follows: 0.49 (patella); 0.53 (trochlea); 0.46 (medial femoral condyle); 0.43 (medial plateau); 0.67 (lateral femoral condyle); and 0.51 (lateral plateau). The MRI sensitivity was 76.4 % (patella), 88.2 % (trochlea), 69.7 % (medial femoral condyle), 85.7 % (medial plateau), 81.8 % (lateral femoral condyle) and 75 % (lateral plateau). Comparing the radiologists' evaluations, the following κ coefficients were obtained as follows: 0.73 (patella); 0.63 (trochlea); 0.84 (medial femoral condyle); 0.72 (medial plateau); 0.77 (lateral femoral condyle); and 0.91 (lateral plateau).

conclusionCompared with arthroscopy, MRI displays moderate sensitivity for detecting and classifying chondral knee injuries. It is an important image method, but we must be careful in the assessment of patients with suspected chondral lesions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedArthroscopyCartilage, ArticularCartilage DiseasesChildFemaleHumansKnee InjuriesKnee JointMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityArthroscopyArticular cartilageInjuryKneeMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID25957606
OpenAlexW2096316576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.