Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34660823›Full record

ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2021

Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasonography for Rotator Cuff Tears: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Ali S Farooqi, Alexander Lee, David Novikov, Ann Marie Kelly, Xinning Li, John D Kelly, Robert L Parisien

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ali S FarooqiPerelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Alexander LeePerelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
David NovikovBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ann Marie KellySidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Xinning LiBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
John D KellyPerelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Robert L ParisienHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
University of Pennsylvania · USBoston University · USHarvard University · USThomas Jefferson University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith recent improvements in transducer strength, image resolution, and operator training, ultrasound (US) provides an excellent alternative imaging modality for the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of US for partial- and full-thickness rotator cuff tears and biceps tendon tears, compare diagnostic values with those of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using arthroscopy as the reference standard, assess longitudinal improvements in accuracy, and compare diagnostic values from operators with different training backgrounds. STUDY

designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

methodsThe PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for full-text journal articles published between January 1, 2010, and April 1, 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of US for rotator cuff tears or biceps tendon tears utilizing arthroscopy as the reference standard. The exclusion criteria were studies with <10 patients, studies including massive tears without reporting diagnostic data for specific tendons, and studies lacking diagnostic outcome data. Extracted outcomes included diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value. The mean difference and 95% confidence interval were calculated for both US and MRI diagnostic values, and meta-analysis was conducted using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.

resultsIn total, 23 eligible studies involving 2054 shoulders were included. US demonstrated a higher median diagnostic accuracy for supraspinatus tendon tears (0.83) and biceps tendon tears (0.93) as compared with subscapularis tendon tears (0.76). US was found to have a higher median accuracy (0.93) for full-thickness supraspinatus tears than partial-thickness tears (0.81). US had superior median sensitivity for partial-thickness supraspinatus tears when performed by radiologists as opposed to surgeons (0.86 vs 0.57). Meta-analysis of the 5 studies comparing US and MRI demonstrated no statistically significant difference in diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy for any thickness supraspinatus tears

conclusionFor experienced operators, US is a highly sensitive and specific diagnostic modality for the diagnosis of supraspinatus tears and demonstrates statistically equivalent capability to MRI in the diagnosis of both full- and partial-thickness rotator cuff tears.

Indexed as

diagnostic imagingdiagnostic ultrasoundMRIrotator cuffsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34660823
PMCPMC8511934
OpenAlexW3205263174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.