ArticleCartilage2018
T2* Mapping Provides Information That Is Statistically Comparable to an Arthroscopic Evaluation of Acetabular Cartilage.
Article in Cartilage, 2018. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Femoral Head Articular Cartilage Change in Patients with Hip Osteonecrosis Treated with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy.International journal of clinical practice · 2022Trial
- Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Hip Labral Repair or Reconstruction.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Effects of Angular Resolution andCartilage · 2021Article
- Using a simplified version of a common surgical grading scale for acetabular labral tears improves the utility of preoperative hip MRI for femoroacetabular impingement.Skeletal radiology · 2020Article
- Diagnostic utility of fluorogenic peptide-conjugated Au nanoparticle probe corroborated by rabbit model of mild cartilage injury and panel of osteoarthritic patients.American journal of translational research · 2018Article
- What the papers say.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives The purpose of this study was to validate T2* mapping as an objective, noninvasive method for the prediction of acetabular cartilage damage. Methods This is the second step in the validation of T2*. In a previous study, we established a quantitative predictive model for identifying and grading acetabular cartilage damage. In this study, the model was applied to a second cohort of 27 consecutive hips to validate the model. A clinical 3.0-T imaging protocol with T2* mapping was used. Acetabular regions of interest (ROI) were identified on magnetic resonance and graded using the previously established model. Each ROI was then graded in a blinded fashion by arthroscopy. Accurate surgical location of ROIs was facilitated with a 2-dimensional map projection of the acetabulum. A total of 459 ROIs were studied. Results When T2* mapping and arthroscopic assessment were compared, 82% of ROIs were within 1 Beck group (of a total 6 possible) and 32% of ROIs were classified identically. Disease prediction based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.713 and a specificity of 0.804. Model stability evaluation required no significant changes to the predictive model produced in the initial study. Conclusions These results validate that T2* mapping provides statistically comparable information regarding acetabular cartilage when compared to arthroscopy. In contrast to arthroscopy, T2* mapping is quantitative, noninvasive, and can be used in follow-up. Unlike research quantitative magnetic resonance protocols, T2* takes little time and does not require a contrast agent. This may facilitate its use in the clinical sphere.
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.