Observational studyMedicine2018
Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging for patients with acute and chronic anterior cruciate ligament tears.
Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correlation between the elastic modulus of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and quantitative ultrashort echo time (UTE) magnetic resonance imaging.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2022Article
- Patterns of presentation and early treatment outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament injury at the National Orthopaedic Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria: a retrospective cross-sectional study.The Pan African medical journal · 2022Article
- Primary anterior cruciate ligament repair: magnetic resonance imaging characterisation of reparable lesions and correlation with arthroscopy.European radiology · 2022Article
- Descriptive study of knee lesions using magnetic resonance imaging and correlation between medical imaging diagnosis and suspected clinical diagnosis.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
- Quantitative mapping of acute and chronic PCL pathology with 3 T MRI: a prospectively enrolled patient cohort.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the direct and indirect signs on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with acute and chronic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears.Two independent reviewers retrospectively evaluated the MRI images of 377 patients with ACL tear confirmed by arthroscopy. There were 160 cases with acute ACL tear and 217 cases with chronic ACL tear. Direct signs in T1- and T2-wighted images and indirect signs including meniscus injury, the collateral ligament injury, cartilage damage or osteoarthritis, kissing contusion, Notch syndrome and abnormal posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) and other indirect signs were evaluated.For direct signs on MRI, no significant differences were found between the acute and chronic ACL tear in prevalence of focal high signal in substance of T2-wighted images and in that of abnormal orientation, discontinuity, thickening, or focal masses in substance of T1-weighted images. However, higher incidence of diffuse high signal of T2-weighted images for acute ACL tear was found compared to that for chronic ACL tear (55.0% vs 3.2%). For indirect signs on MRI, the collateral ligament tear (20.6% vs 2.3%), cartilage damage or osteoarthritis (14.4% vs 25.8%), kissing contusion (57.4% vs 0%), Notch syndrome (28.1% vs 3.2%), and bowing type of PCL (33.1% vs 47.0%) can differentiate the acute from chronic ACL tear.Some direct and indirect signs on MRI are closely related to the acute and chronic ACL tear.
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.