SynthesisEuropean radiology2024
Diagnostic performance of long head of biceps tendon tears on MRI: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Popeye sign: beyond the bulge-a proposal for a standardized definition and classification.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Article
- Advances in Shoulder Pain Imaging: A Narrative Review of Current Practice and Emerging Trends.Current medical imaging · 2025Article
- Overview for developing Delphi-based interdisciplinary consensus statements on imaging: pros and cons.Journal of ultrasonography · 2024Article
- Evolving roles of PET/CT and PET/MRI in assessing pediatric disorders with acceptable safety standards.European radiology · 2024Article
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
objectivesThe purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the diagnostic performance of conventional MRI and MR arthrography for tendinosis, and partial and complete tears of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) using arthroscopy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review was performed using predefined data fields in PubMed, and all articles published from January 2000 up to April 2022 were retrospectively pooled and reviewed. Six MRI studies on complete tear (n = 555) and ten studies on partial tear/tendinosis (n = 2487) were included in the analysis. Two of the included studies in each group investigated the use of MR arthrography. The data sets were analyzed using a univariate approach with the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model and the proportional hazards model.
resultsMRI shows high specificities in diagnosing complete tears of the LHBT ranging from 93.0 to 99.0%. Diagnostic sensitivity was more heterogeneous ranging from 55.9 to 90.0%. The overall negative likelihood ratio was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.17-0.50) and the overall positive likelihood ratio was 37.3 (95% CI: 11.9-117.4). The mean sensitivity in diagnosing partial tear/tendinosis of the LHBT was 67.8% (95% CI: 54.3-78.9%) and the specificity was 75.9% (95% CI: 63.6-85.0%), resulting in a balanced accuracy of 71.9%. The overall negative likelihood ratio was 0.44 (95% CI: 0.32-0.59) and the overall positive likelihood ratio was 2.64 (95% CI: 1.91-3.65).
conclusionMRI is highly specific for the diagnosis of complete tears of the LHBT, whereas diagnostic sensitivity was more heterogeneous. The diagnosis of partial tears and/or tendinosis of the LHBT remains challenging on MRI, which may warrant complementary clinical examination or other imaging modalities to increase diagnostic confidence in equivocal cases. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Conventional MRI and MR arthrography have high diagnostic performance for complete tendon tear when compared to arthroscopy. The diagnosis of tendinosis/partial tears remains challenging and may require comparison with clinical tests and other imaging modalities. KEY POINTS: •There is no clear consensus regarding the primary imaging modality for the evaluation of LHBT disorders. •Conventional MRI and MR arthrography are highly specific in diagnosing complete tears of the LHBT. •Diagnosis of partial tears/tendinosis of the LHBT on conventional MRI and MR arthrography remains a diagnostic challenge.
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.