ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2016
Comparison of clinical, MRI and arthroscopic assessments of chronic ACL injuries, meniscal tears and cartilage defects.
Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of ramp lesions of the knee: a systematic review of the literature.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of MRI for meniscal tear patterns in ACL-deficient knees: comparison with arthroscopic findings.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Development of a multi-task deep learning system for classification of nine common knee abnormalities on MRI: a large-scale, multicentre, stepwise validation study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Which factors are associated with the prevalence of meniscal repair?BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Review
- Towards improving the identification of anterior cruciate ligament tears in primary point-of-care settings.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- Article
- What is the clinical evidence on regenerative medicine in intervertebral disc degeneration?Musculoskeletal surgery · 2017Review
- Imaging of the Posttraumatic Knee in Pediatric Patients.Current health sciences journalArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of clinical examination to that of MRI evaluated by two independent radiologists for the diagnosis of meniscal tears and chronic anterior cruciate ligament injuries and to assess the MRI accuracy in the diagnosis of cartilage defects.
methodsSeventy-six consecutive patients with suspected intra-articular knee pathology were prospectively evaluated by objective examination, 1.5 T MRI, re-examined by trained radiologist and arthroscopy. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated. Agreement analysis with kappa (К) coefficient values was performed for meniscal and ACL tears.
resultsNo differences were found between diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination, the first and second MRI reports in diagnosis of medial meniscus (84 vs 96 vs 97 %) and anterior cruciate ligament injuries (93 vs 78 vs 89 %). For the lateral meniscal tears, the accuracy of the second radiologist was significantly higher than those of the first (96 vs 75 %; p < 0.01) and clinical examination (96 vs 86 %; p = 0.02). High diagnostic values were obtained for the diagnosis of full-thickness chondral defects with sensitivity of 100 %, specificity of 95 % and accuracy of 95 %.
conclusionClinical and MRI evaluations have no differences in the diagnosis of medial meniscus and anterior cruciate ligament injuries. A trained radiologist obtained better sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in the diagnosis of lateral meniscus. 1.5 T MRI does not represent the technique of choice in the evaluation of chondral defect but demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for detection of full-thickness chondral defects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic prospective study, Level II.
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.