Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34456636›Full record

ArticleTheScientificWorldJournal2021

Ultrasonographic Assessment of the Normal Femoral Articular Cartilage of the Knee Joint: Comparison with 3D MRI.

Kyösti Kauppinen, Victor Casula, Štefan Zbýň, Roberto Blanco Sequeiros, Simo S Saarakkala, Mika T Nevalainen

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Advances in cartilage imaging techniques.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Kyösti KauppinenMedical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 8000, Oulu, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7229-7577
Victor CasulaMedical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 8000, Oulu, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0447-2796
Štefan ZbýňResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 5000, FI-90014 Oulu, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8211-2828
Roberto Blanco SequeirosDepartment of Radiology, Turku University Hospital, P.O. Box 52, 20521 Turku, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0167-9639
Simo S SaarakkalaMedical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 8000, Oulu, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2850-5484
Mika T NevalainenMedical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 8000, Oulu, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9483-7690
Oulu University Hospital · FITurku University Hospital · FIUniversity of Minnesota · USUniversity of Oulu · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveUltrasonography (US) has a promising role in evaluating the knee joint, but capability to visualize the femoral articular cartilage needs systematic evaluation. We measured the extent of this acoustic window by comparing standardized US images with the corresponding MRI views of the femoral cartilage.

designTen healthy volunteers without knee pathology underwent systematic US and MRI evaluation of both knees. The femoral cartilage was assessed on the oblique transverse axial plane with US and with 3D MRI. The acoustic window on US was compared to the corresponding views of the femoral sulcus and both condyles on MRI. The mean imaging coverage of the femoral cartilage and the cartilage thickness measurements on US and MRI were compared.

resultsMean imaging coverage of the cartilage of the medial femoral condyle was 66% (range 54%-80%) and on the lateral femoral condyle 37% (range 25%-51%) compared with MRI. Mean cartilage thickness measurement in the femoral sulcus was 3.17 mm with US and 3.61 mm with MRI (14.0% difference). The corresponding measurements in the medial femoral condyle were 1.95 mm with US and 2.35 mm with MRI (21.0% difference), and in the lateral femoral condyle, they were 2.17 mm and 2.73 mm (25.6% difference), respectively.

conclusionTwo-thirds of the articular cartilage of the medial femoral condyle, and one-third in the lateral femoral condyle, can be assessed with US. The cartilage thickness measurements seem to be underestimated by US. These results show promise for the evaluation of the weight-bearing cartilage of the medial femoral condyle with US.

Indexed as

AdultCartilage, ArticularFemaleFemurHealthy VolunteersHumansKnee JointMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID34456636
PMCPMC8387170
OpenAlexW3194092270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.