Observational studySkeletal radiology2020
Image quality of hip MR arthrography with intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid versus gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with femoroacetabular impingement.
Observational study in Skeletal radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare image quality of magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) of the hip with intra-articular injection of high-viscosity hyaluronic acid (HA-MRA) versus Gd-based contrast agent (Gd-MRA) in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). MATERIALS AND
methodsDesign: single-centre, observational, retrospective, inter-individual, and cross-sectional. FAI patients who underwent HA-MRA (3 mL of high-viscosity HA plus 17 mL of saline) were compared with 37 age- and sex-matched FAI patients who underwent Gd-MRA (20 mL of 2 mmol/L solution of gadopentetate dimeglumine). Two independent blinded radiologists assessed image quality for all sequences (two-dimensional proton density, non-fat-sat axial, fat-sat coronal and sagittal; three-dimensional dual-echo steady state), using a 5-point Likert scale considering separately labrum, cartilage, round ligament, transverse ligament, and capsule. Pearson χ
resultsThe HA-MRA group was composed of 37 patients (23 males, 14 females; median age 38 years), the Gd-MRA group of 37 patients (21 males, 16 females; median age 38 years), without significant difference for age (p = 0.937) and sex (p = 0.636). Image quality did not differ between the two readers for any structure: labrum (p ≥ 0.340), cartilage (p ≥ 0.198), round ligament (p ≥ 0.255), transverse ligament (p ≥ 0.806), and capsule (p ≥ 0.314). Inter-reader agreement (κ) ranged from 0.785 to 1.000.
conclusionsHA-MRA provided an image quality not significantly different from that of Gd-MRA. This may open the possibility of combining MRA and viscosupplementation in one single procedure.
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.