Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28523339›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2018

Medial meniscal extrusion: a validation study comparing different methods of assessment.

Luke D Jones, Stephen J Mellon, Neil Kruger, Andrew P Monk, Andrew J Price, David J Beard

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Medial meniscus posterior root repair reduces the extruded meniscus volume during knee flexion with favorable clinical outcome.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021
    Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luke D JonesBotnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK. luke.jones@ndorms.ox.ac.uk.
Stephen J MellonBotnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Neil KrugerBotnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Andrew P MonkBotnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Andrew J PriceBotnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
David J BeardBotnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLongitudinal cohort studies of knee OA aetiology use MRI to assess meniscal extrusion within the same knee at sequential time points. A validated method of assessment is required to ensure that extrusion is measured at the same location within the knee at each time point. Absolute perpendicular extrusion from the tibial edge can be assessed using the reference standard of segmentation of the tibia and medial meniscus. This is labour intensive and unsuitable for large cohorts. Two methods are commonly used as proxy measurements. Firstly, the apex of the medial tibial spine is used to identify a reproducible MRI coronal slice, from which extrusion is measured. Secondly, the coronal MRI slice of the knee demonstrating the greatest extrusion is used. The purpose of this study was to validate these two methods against the reference standard and to determine the most appropriate method to use in longitudinal cohort studies. We hypothesised that there is no difference in absolute meniscal extrusion measurements between methods.

methodsTwenty high-resolution knee MRI scans were obtained in asymptomatic subjects. The tibia and medial meniscus were manually segmented. A custom MATLAB program was used to determine the difference in medial meniscal extrusion of the knee using the reference standard compared to the two other methods.

resultsAssessing extrusion using the single coronal MRI slice demonstrating the greatest extrusion overestimates the true extrusion of the medial meniscus. It incorrectly places the greatest meniscal extrusion at the anterior part of the tibia. Assessing extrusion using a consistent anatomical landmark, such as the medial tibial spine, most reliably corresponds to the reference of segmentation and measurement of true perpendicular extrusion from the tibial edge. Clinicians and researchers should consider this when assessing meniscal extrusion in the knee, and how it changes over time.

conclusionThis study suggests measuring meniscal extrusion on the coronal MRI slice corresponding to the apex of the medial tibial spine as this correlates most closely with the true perpendicular extrusion measurements obtained from manually segmented models. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, Level I.

Indexed as

AdultAnatomic LandmarksHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMenisci, TibialOsteoarthritis, KneeMedial meniscusMeniscal extrusionOsteoarthritisValidation

Identifiers

PMID28523339
PMCPMC5876269
OpenAlexW2605717143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.