ArticleLa Radiologia medica2022
MRI evaluation of meniscal anatomy: which parameters reach the best inter-observer concordance?
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study is to evaluate which MRI parameters achieve the best degree of inter-individual concordance in the description of meniscal fibrocartilage, regarding its morphology, signal and position. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty-nine knee MRIs were included in the study, retrospectively re-evaluated by three radiologists who completed a binary report (normal/abnormal) describing the meniscus signal, position relative to the tibial plateau margin and morphology. The inter-individual concordance value was calculated using Cohen's test.
resultsWe obtained different inter-individual concordance values according to the parameters considered. The concordance was poor in the description of the meniscal position relative to the tibial plateau margin (average k = 0.6); the result was comparable in the description of the meniscal morphology (average k = 0.56). The best results were obtained with the meniscal signal analysis (average k = 0.8).
conclusionTo the best of our knowledge, there are no studies in the literature assessing the concordance between multiple readers in the description of the parameters we studied. The results we obtained suggest that the most reliable parameter for describing meniscal fibrocartilage is its signal intensity, whereas morphology and position may lead to different interpretations that are not always unequivocal.
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.