ArticleThe ultrasound journal2020
Development of supraspinatus imaging guidance for primary care physicians with a focus on patient selection.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care physicians frequently encounter patients with supraspinatus pathology and face a difficult task of managing this subset of patients using limited imaging resources. The purpose of this study was to develop a guidance that could help primary care physicians choose appropriate imaging tests judiciously for patients with suspected supraspinatus pathology.
methodsThe imaging reports of one hundred patients who underwent ultrasound and MRI for suspected supraspinatus tendinopathy were retrospectively assessed. The supraspinatus tendon was recorded as intact, partial tear (articular or bursal), or full-thickness tear (focal or complete width). The agreement between imaging modalities was then evaluated using factors such as pathology type and age.
resultsThere was agreement between modalities in 48/100 patients (Kappa statistic = 0.30). The consistency varied with type of pathology: intact tendons by ultrasound had 55.8% agreement with MRI, partial sided bursal tears 50%, partial sided articular tears 25%, and full-thickness focal tears 33.3%. Full-thickness complete-width tears had a much better agreement with MRI at 90.9%. Age was also significant, with increased disagreement between ultrasound and MRI in patients over 50 years old.
conclusionsOur data showed that ultrasound findings correlated well with MRI in patients under 50 years of age and also in patients with full-thickness supraspinatus tears. We recommend that primary care physicians may consider using ultrasound as the initial test in younger patients and in patients with suspected full supraspinatus tears, based on clinical exam, with MRI as an option for further evaluation to quantify supraspinatus muscle atrophy. These patient selection recommendations will help promote mindful utilization of scarce resources.
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.