Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31240354›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2019

[Update: clinical imaging of cartilage-part 1 : Technical aspects].

C Glaser, A Heuck, A Horng

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Radiologe, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

C GlaserRadiologisches Zentrum München (RZM), Pippingerstr. 25, 81245, München, Deutschland. glaser@rzm.de.
A HeuckRadiologisches Zentrum München (RZM), Pippingerstr. 25, 81245, München, Deutschland.
A HorngRadiologisches Zentrum München (RZM), Pippingerstr. 25, 81245, München, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn order to answer clinical therapy-oriented questions, reliable and consistent depiction of articular cartilage across technical platforms is necessary. MATERIALS AND

methodsTechnical standards and developments in cartilage imaging are summarized based on current literature and experience from clinical daily routine.

resultsClinical questions that need to be answered relate to cross-sectional extent, depth, differentiating cartilaginous from bony components of a lesion and to the lesion's location within the compartment. If present, displaced fragments, concomitant meniscal, ligamentous and/or degenerative lesions should be identified. To date, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the workhorse of cartilage imaging and is largely based on moderately T2-weighted and also proton-density (PD)-weighted fat-suppressed turbo-spin-echo sequences. Direct MR- and CT-arthrography are the gold standard to evaluate thin cartilage layers. Recent advances in coil and MR sequence design, increased availability of 3T-MR scanners and more and more sophisticated acceleration techniques allow for better spatial resolution and more robust image contrast at acceptable scan times. DISCUSSION: As abundant as current developments in clinical routine cartilage imaging may be, the radiologist must carefully select the approach best suited to answering the clinical questions.

Indexed as

Cartilage, ArticularCartilage DiseasesArthrographyCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingCoilsComputed tomography arthrographyJoint cartilageMagnetic resonance imagingSequences

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.