ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2020
Inter- and Intraobserver Reliability Between Orthopaedic Surgeons for Reparability of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Using MRI.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Determining the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear Location.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Reliability of Preoperative MRI in the Prediction of ACL Tear Type.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Approaching expert-level accuracy for differentiating ACL tear types on MRI with deep learning.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Medial meniscus tears are most prevalent in type I ACL tears, while type I ACL tears only account for 8% of all ACL tears.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
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
backgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is the standard of care for patients after an ACL tear, as poor historical outcomes were observed after primary ACL repair. Certain subgroups of patients, however, have been shown to have outcomes equivalent to reconstruction after undergoing ACL repair and therefore may benefit from the potential advantages offered by avoiding reconstruction. It is important to accurately and consistently identify and indicate these candidates for ACL repair. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to determine the inter- and intraobserver reliability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation for the reparability of ACL tears and to identify imaging factors that may lead to surgeon uncertainty or disagreement in decision making. Our hypothesis was that the orthopaedic surgeons surveyed would not be able to reliably agree on the reparability of an ACL using MRI scans alone. STUDY
designCohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.
methodsWe administered 2 surveys to 6 fellowship-trained orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons. Each surgeon reviewed preoperative MRI scans for 20 patients and answered a series of questions, ultimately determining whether they would choose an ACL reconstruction or repair for the patient based on the imaging alone. The same survey was repeated 6 weeks later. Kappa values for inter- and intraobserver reliability of their decision making were then calculated.
resultsThe average kappa for interobserver reliability in the 2 surveys was 0.22, and the average kappa for intraobserver reliability was 0.34. Interobserver reliability among the surgeons in this group was poor to moderate; intraobserver reliability was slightly better. The choice for ACL repair was significantly correlated with proximal tear locations (
conclusionThe surgeons surveyed in this study did not consistently agree on candidates for ACL repair using MRI alone.
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.