Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28717928›Full record

ArticleSkeletal radiology2017

Routine clinical knee MR reports: comparison of diagnostic performance at 1.5 T and 3.0 T for assessment of the articular cartilage.

Jacob C Mandell, Jeffrey A Rhodes, Nehal Shah, Glenn C Gaviola, Andreas H Gomoll, Stacy E Smith

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Skeletal radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Magnetic resonance imaging is able to detect patellofemoral focal cartilage injuries: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Jacob C MandellDivision of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. jmandell@partners.org.
Jeffrey A RhodesDivision of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Nehal ShahDivision of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Glenn C GaviolaDivision of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Andreas H GomollCartilage Repair Center, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Stacy E SmithDivision of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAccurate assessment of knee articular cartilage is clinically important. Although 3.0 Tesla (T) MRI is reported to offer improved diagnostic performance, literature regarding the clinical impact of MRI field strength is lacking. The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic performance of clinical MRI reports for assessment of cartilage at 1.5 and 3.0 T in comparison to arthroscopy. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis IRB-approved retrospective study consisted of 300 consecutive knees in 297 patients who had routine clinical MRI and arthroscopy. Descriptions of cartilage from MRI reports of 165 knees at 1.5 T and 135 at 3.0 T were compared with arthroscopy. The sensitivity, specificity, percent of articular surfaces graded concordantly, and percent of articular surfaces graded within one grade of the arthroscopic grading were calculated for each articular surface at 1.5 and 3.0 T. Agreement between MRI and arthroscopy was calculated with the weighted-kappa statistic. Significance testing was performed utilizing the z-test after bootstrapping to obtain the standard error. RESULTS AND

conclusionsThe sensitivity, specificity, percent of articular surfaces graded concordantly, and percent of articular surfaces graded within one grade were 61.4%, 82.7%, 62.2%, and 77.5% at 1.5 T and 61.8%, 80.6%, 59.5%, and 75.6% at 3.0 T, respectively. The weighted kappa statistic was 0.56 at 1.5 T and 0.55 at 3.0 T. There was no statistically significant difference in any of these parameters between 1.5 and 3.0 T. Factors potentially contributing to the lack of diagnostic advantage of 3.0 T MRI are discussed.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArthroscopyCartilage, ArticularCartilage DiseasesFemaleHumansKnee JointMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityArticular cartilageClinical MRI reportsDiagnostic performanceKneeMR field strength

Identifiers

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.