ArticleSkeletal radiology2020
Tibial bone stress injury: diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement of an abbreviated 5-min magnetic resonance protocol.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement of an abbreviated (5 min) MR protocol compared to a complete (25 min) protocol, for evaluation of suspected tibial bone stress injury. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis IRB-approved retrospective study consisted of 95 consecutive MR examinations in 88 patients with suspected tibial bone stress injury. Three musculoskeletal radiologists independently classified all examinations utilizing both an abbreviated protocol consisting only of axial T2-weighted images with fat suppression, and after a washout period again classified the complete examinations. Accuracy was calculated as proportion of cases classified exactly, within 1 grade, within 2 grades, and also utilizing a simplified "clinically relevant" classification combining grades 2, 3, and 4A into a single group. Significance testing was performed with the chi-test, and a post-hoc power analysis was performed. Inter-reader agreement was calculated with Kendall's coefficient of concordance, with significance testing performed utilizing the z-test after bootstrapping to obtain the standard error. RESULTS AND
conclusionsThere was no significant difference in accuracy of grading tibial bone stress injuries between complete and abbreviated examinations. For complete exams, pooled exact accuracy was 47.8%; accuracy within 1 grade was 82.8%; and accuracy within 2 grades was 96.1%. For the abbreviated protocol, corresponding accuracies were 50.2, 82.0, and 93.9%. With the "clinically relevant" simplified classification, accuracy was 58.6% for complete exams and 64.2% for abbreviated exams. There was no significant difference in inter-reader agreement, with substantial agreement demonstrated for both complete (Kendall coefficient of concordance 0.805) and abbreviated examinations (coefficient of 0.767).
Indexed as
Identifiers
31420694What 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.