ReviewDer Radiologe2019
[Update cartilage imaging of the small joints : Focus on high-field MRI].
Review in Der Radiologe, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variation in cartilage T2 and T2* mapping of the wrist: a comparison between 3- and 7-T MRI.European radiology experimental · 2023Article
- Evaluation of finger cartilage composition in recreational climbers with 7 Tesla T2 mapping magnetic resonance imaging.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023Article
- Inter-Rater Reliability of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Comparison to Computed Tomography and Wrist Arthroscopy in SLAC and SNAC Wrist.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCartilage imaging of small joints is increasingly of interest, as early detection of cartilage damage may be relevant regarding individualized surgical therapies and long-term outcomes. PURPOSE: The aim of this review is to explain modern cartilage imaging of small joints with emphasis on MRI and to discuss the role of methods such as CT arthrography as well as compositional and high-field MRI. MATERIALS AND
methodsA PubMed literature search was performed for the years 2008-2018.
resultsClinically relevant cartilage imaging to detect chondral damage in small joints remains challenging. Conventional MRI at 3 T can still be considered as a reference for cartilage imaging in clinical routine. In terms of sensitivity, MR arthrography (MR-A) and computed tomography arthrography (CT-A) are superior to non-arthrographic MRI at 1.5 T in the detection of chondral damage. Advanced degenerative changes of the fingers and toes are usually sufficiently characterized by conventional radiography. MRI at field strengths of 3 T and ultrahigh-field imaging at 7 T can provide additional quantifiable, functional and metabolic information.
conclusionStandardized cartilage imaging plays an important role in clinical diagnostics in the ankle joint due to the availability of different and individualized therapeutic concepts. In contrast, cartilage imaging of other small joints as commonly performed in clinical studies has not yet become standard of care in daily clinical routine. Although individual study results are promising, additional studies with large patient collectives are needed to validate these techniques. With rapid development of new treatment concepts radiological diagnostics will play a more significant role in the diagnosis of cartilage lesions of small joints.
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.