ArticleJournal of integrative bioinformatics2017
Comparison of Different Approaches for Measuring Tibial Cartilage Thickness.
Article in Journal of integrative bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distance mapping for quantifying contact surface area and inter-bone distance in wrist CT imaging: a comparative study of four methods.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Quantitative MRI-measured composition changes despite small mechanical measures in tibiofemoral cartilage of healthy adults under applied load.Journal of biomechanics · 2025Article
- Laxity, Balance, and Alignment of a Simulated Kinematic Alignment Total Knee Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
- Review
- Getting Cartilage Thickness Measurements Right: A Systematic Inter-Method Comparison Using MRI Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative.Cartilage · 2023Article
- Effect of cartilage thickness mismatch in osteochondral grafting from knee to talus on articular contact pressures: A finite element analysis.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2021Article
- pyKNEEr: An image analysis workflow for open and reproducible research on femoral knee cartilage.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Osteoarthritis is a degenerative disease affecting bones and cartilage especially in the human knee. In this context, cartilage thickness is an indicator for knee cartilage health. Thickness measurements are performed on medical images acquired in-vivo. Currently, there is no standard method agreed upon that defines a distance measure in articular cartilage. In this work, we present a comparison of different methods commonly used in literature. These methods are based on nearest neighbors, surface normal vectors, local thickness and potential field lines. All approaches were applied to manual segmentations of tibia and lateral and medial tibial cartilage performed by experienced raters. The underlying data were contrast agent-enhanced cone-beam C-arm CT reconstructions of one healthy subject's knee. The subject was scanned three times, once in supine position and two times in a standing weight-bearing position. A comparison of the resulting thickness maps shows similar distributions and high correlation coefficients between the approaches above 0.90. The nearest neighbor method results on average in the lowest cartilage thickness values, while the local thickness approach assigns the highest values. We showed that the different methods agree in their thickness distribution. The results will be used for a future evaluation of cartilage change under weight-bearing conditions.
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.