ArticleSkeletal radiology2020
Flat-panel CT arthrography for cartilage defect detection in the ankle joint: first results in vivo.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cone beam CT in the imaging of musculoskeletal trauma: a scoping review.Skeletal radiology · 2025Article
- Photon-counting CT versus energy-integrating detector and flat-panel CT for cadaveric wrist arthrography with additional tin filter dose reduction.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Comparison of conventional MR arthrography and 3D volumetric MR arthrography in detection of cartilage defects accompanying glenoid labrum pathologies.Skeletal radiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of flat-panel computed tomography (FPCT) arthrography for cartilage defect detection in the ankle joint to direct magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography using multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) arthrography as the reference standard.
methodsTwenty-seven patients with specific suspicion of articular cartilage lesion underwent ankle arthrography with injection of a mixture of diluted gadolinium and iobitridol and were examined consecutively with the use of FPCT, MDCT, and 1.5 T MR imaging. FPCT, MDCT, and MR arthrography examinations were blinded and randomly evaluated by two musculoskeletal radiologists in consensus. In each ankle, eight articular cartilage areas were assessed separately: medial talar surface, medial talar trochlea, lateral talar trochlea, lateral talar surface, tibial malleolus, medial tibial plafond, lateral tibial plafond, and fibular malleolus. Findings at FPCT and MR were compared with MDCT assessments in 216 cartilage areas.
resultsFor the detection of cartilage defects, FPCT demonstrated a sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 95%, and accuracy of 96%; and MR arthrography showed a sensitivity of 69%, specificity of 94%, and accuracy of 87%. FPCT and MR arthrography presented almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.87) and moderate agreement (κ = 0.60), respectively, with MDCT arthrography. Mean diagnostic confidence was higher for FPCT (2.9/3) than for MR (2.3/3) and MDCT (2.7/3) arthrography.
conclusionsFPCT demonstrated better accuracy than did 1.5 T MR arthrography for cartilage defect detection in the ankle joint. Therefore, FPCT should be considered in patients scheduled for dedicated imaging of ankle articular cartilage.
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.