ArticleSkeletal radiology2024
Comparison of conventional MR arthrography and 3D volumetric MR arthrography in detection of cartilage defects accompanying glenoid labrum pathologies.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Arthroscopic Microfracture for Focal Glenoid Osteochondral Lesions in Young Active-Duty Military Patients: A Minimum 10-Year Follow-Up.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- A detailed 3D volumetric magnetic resonance arthrographic analysis in a spiral ligament and anteroinferior capsuloligamentous complex of the shoulder joint.Skeletal radiology · 2025Article
- New imaging techniques and trends in radiology.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn this study, we aimed to compare conventional and T1-weighted volumetric magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) in the diagnosis and grading of glenoid cartilage defects that accompany labral pathologies. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 79 patients who were prediagnosed with labrum pathologies based on shoulder magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) had MRA and CTA between December 2021 and May 2022. CTA was regarded as reference standard. CTA images were examined by a radiologist experienced in musculoskeletal radiology, and MRA images were examined by two radiologists independently to determine presence, grade, and localization of any glenoid cartilage defect, if present. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated separately for conventional and T1-weighted volumetric MRA. In addition, at the last stage, two observers examined all MRAs together, and the presence of a cartilage defect was decided by consensus, and the overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated.
resultsCartilage defect was detected on CTAs of 48 (60.75%) cases of among 79 patients with labrum pathology. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of conventional MRA for two examiners were 17-19%, 100-100%, and 49-51%, respectively, while those values were 67-65%, 92-97%, and 84-77%, respectively, for T1-weighted volumetric MRA. Inter-examiner agreement was excellent for diagnosis of cartilage defects on all MRAs. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for detection of glenoid cartilage lesions by MRA were 69%, 97%, and 80%, respectively.
conclusionT1-weighted volumetric MRA seems to demonstrate cartilage defects accompanied with labrum pathologies accurately with high sensitivity, specificity, and excellent inter-examiner agreement.
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.