ArticleCureus2023
Needle Arthroscopy as a Promising Alternative to MRI for the Diagnosis of Meniscus Injury.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- First-in-human exploratory trial assessing safety, feasibility, and efficacy of artificial protein (silk-elastin) in promoting healing in patients with meniscus injuries.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Arthroscopy Correlation in Traumatic Knee Injuries: A Retrospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Needle Arthroscopy in Orthopedic Practice: Clinical Applications, Evidence Architecture, and Translational Gaps-A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Needle arthroscopy as an emerging office-based tool: Promising diagnostic value but limited evidence for therapeutic equivalence-A systematic review and frequentist meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Atypically Displaced Meniscal Tears: An Educational Review with Focus on MRI and Arthroscopy.Clinics and practice · 2025Review
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is an Effective First-Line Noninvasive Tool for Meniscal Tear Detection: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis With Knee Arthroscopy.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Meniscal injury is a common cause of knee pain and functional impairment, often necessitating surgical intervention. Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is frequently used for diagnosis, its accuracy is variable and may lead to false positives and negatives. To address these issues, needle arthroscopy has gained attention as a potential diagnostic alternative to MRI because of its immediate availability and ability to directly visualize intra-articular structures. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic capabilities of needle arthroscopy in comparison with MRI and diagnostic arthroscopy for meniscal injuries. Forty patients with suspected meniscal injuries requiring surgical treatment were enrolled between November 2017 and March 2019. A needle arthroscope with a 0.95-mm diameter was used to evaluate meniscal injuries. Three orthopaedic surgeons with approximately 10 years of experience independently evaluated the images from the needle arthroscopy, diagnostic arthroscopy, and preoperative MRI without any knowledge regarding patients' information. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each modality were used to compare the diagnostic accuracies. For lateral meniscus (LM) injuries, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of needle arthroscopy compared to diagnostic arthroscopy were 0.706, 0.852, 0.148, and 0.294, respectively. For medial meniscus (MM) injuries, the corresponding values were 0.889, 0.864, 0.136, and 0.111, respectively. In comparison, MRI had a lower sensitivity for LM injuries (0.588) and a higher sensitivity for MM injuries (1.0). The agreement between diagnostic arthroscopy and needle arthroscopy was moderate (kappa=0.517), while the agreements between diagnostic arthroscopy or needle arthroscopy and MRI were poor. Similar patterns were observed for the presence, location, and tear patterns of meniscal injuries. In conclusion, needle arthroscopy shows promise as an effective diagnostic modality for meniscal injuries, surpassing the limitations of MRI.
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.