ArticleClinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)2024
Knee cartilage change on magnetic resonance imaging: Should we lump or split topographical regions? A 2-year study of data from the osteoarthritis initiative.
Article in Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe challenge the paradigm that a simplistic approach evaluating anatomic regions (e.g., medial femur or tibia) is ideal for assessing articular cartilage loss on magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. We used a data-driven approach to explore whether specific topographical locations of knee cartilage loss may identify novel patterns of cartilage loss over time that current assessment strategies miss.
designWe assessed 60 location-specific measures of articular cartilage on a sample of 99 knees with baseline and 24-month MR images from the Osteoarthritis Initiative, selected as a group with a high likelihood to change. We performed factor analyses of the change in these measures in two ways: (1) summing the measures to create one measure for each of the six anatomically regional-based summary (anatomic regions; e.g., medial tibia) and (2) treating each location separately for a total of 60 measures (location-specific measures).
resultsThe first analysis produced three factors accounting for 66% of the variation in the articular cartilage changes that occur over 24 months of follow-up: (1) medial tibiofemoral, (2) medial and lateral patellar, and (3) lateral tibiofemoral. The second produced 20 factors accounting for 75% of the variance in cartilage changes. Twelve factors only involved one anatomic region. Five factors included locations from adjoining regions (defined by the first analysis; e.g., medial tibiofemoral). Three factors included articular cartilage loss from disparate locations.
conclusionsNovel patterns of cartilage loss occur within each anatomic region and across these regions, including in disparate regions. The traditional anatomic regional approach is simpler to implement and interpret but may obscure meaningful patterns of change.
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.