ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of the Glenoid Index by Computed Tomography With Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Triple-Phase Computed Tomography and Sonoelastographic Evaluation in Focal Hepatic Lesions.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Traumatic Hemifacial Avulsion and Degloving Injury With Left Zygomaticomaxillary Complex Fracture: A Case Report.Cureus · 2024Article
- A Comparative Study of Dynamic Hip Screws and Proximal Femoral Nails in Intertrochanteric Fractures.Cureus · 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
11 authors at 10 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Anterior shoulder instability results in labral and osseous glenoid injuries. With a large osseous defect, there is a risk of recurrent dislocation of the joint, and therefore the patient has to undergo surgical correction. An MRI evaluation of the patient helps to assess the soft tissue injury. Currently, the volumetric three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed CT image is the standard for measuring glenoid bone loss and the glenoid index. However, it has the disadvantage of exposing the patient to radiation and additional expenses. This study aims to compare the values of the glenoid index using MRI and CT. Methodology The present study was a two-year cross-sectional study of patients with shoulder pain, trauma, and dislocation in a tertiary hospital in Karnataka. The sagittal proton density (PD) section of the glenoid and enface 3D reconstructed images of the scapula were used to calculate glenoid bone loss and the glenoid index. The baseline data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and the Chi-square test was used to test the association of various complications with selected variables of interest. Results The glenoid index calculated in the current study using 3D volumetric CT images and MR sagittal PD images was 0.95±0.01 and 0.95±0.01, respectively. The CT and MRI glenoid bone loss was 5.41±0.65% and 5.38±0.65%, respectively. When compared, the glenoid index and bone loss calculated by MRI and CT revealed a high correlation and significance with a p-value of <0.001. Conclusions The study concluded that MRI is a reliable method for glenoid measurement. The sagittal PD sequence combined with an enface glenoid makes it possible to identify osseous defects linked to glenohumeral joint damage and dislocation. The values derived from 3D CT are identical to the glenoid index and bone loss determined using the sagittal PD sequence in 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.