ArticleCartilage2013
On Subregional Analysis of Cartilage Loss from Knee MRI.
Article in Cartilage, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Allogeneic umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cell implantation versus microdrilling combined with high tibial osteotomy for cartilage regeneration.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The knee connectome: A novel tool for studying spatiotemporal change in cartilage thickness.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2024Article
- Towards Automatic Cartilage Quantification in Clinical Trials - Continuing from the 2019 IWOAI Knee Segmentation Challenge.Osteoarthritis imaging · 2023Article
- Studying osteoarthritis with artificial intelligence applied to magnetic resonance imaging.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2022Review
- Cartilage can be thicker in advanced osteoarthritic knees: a tridimensional quantitative analysis of cartilage thickness at posterior aspect of femoral condyles.The British journal of radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveUnderstanding how knee cartilage is affected by osteoarthritis (OA) is critical in the development of sensitive biomarkers that may be used as surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. The objective of this study was to analyze longitudinal changes in cartilage thickness using detailed change maps and to examine if current methods for subregional analysis are able to capture the underlying cartilage changes. MATERIALS AND
methodsMRI images of 267 knees from 135 participants were acquired at baseline and 21-month follow-up and processed using a fully automatic framework for cartilage segmentation and quantification. The framework provides an anatomical coordinate system that allows for direct comparison across cartilage thickness maps. The reproducibility of this method was evaluated on 37 scan-rescan image pairs.
resultsIn OA knees, an annualized thickness loss of 3.7% was observed in the medial femoral cartilage plate (MF) whereas subregional measurements varied between -9.0% (loss) and 1.6%. The largest changes were observed in the posterior part of the MF. In the medial tibial cartilage plate (MT), a thickness increase of 0.4% was observed whereas subregional measurements varied between -0.8% (loss) and 1.6%. In addition, notable differences in the patterns of cartilage change were observed between genders.
conclusionsThis study indicated that the spatial changes, although highly heterogeneous, showed distinct patterns of cartilage thinning and cartilage thickening in both the MF and the MT. These patterns were not accurately reflected when thickness changes were averaged over large, predefined subregions as defined in current methods for subregional analysis.
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.