Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38816593›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2024

The MOCART (magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue) 2.0 Ankle Score.

Markus M Schreiner, Marcus Raudner, Carl S Winalski, Vladimir Juras, Silke Aldrian, Alexander Kolb, Catharina Chiari, Reinhard Windhager, Siegfried Trattnig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Markus M SchreinerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Marcus RaudnerHigh Field MR Center, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Carl S WinalskiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Program of Advanced Musculoskeletal Imaging, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Vladimir JurasHigh Field MR Center, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Silke AldrianDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Alexander KolbDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Catharina ChiariDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Reinhard WindhagerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Siegfried TrattnigHigh Field MR Center, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. siegfried.trattnig@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1623-3303

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to introduce the MOCART 2.0 ankle score and evaluate its utility and reproducibility for the radiological assessment of cartilage repair tissue in the ankle joint.

methodsThe MOCART 2.0 ankle score evaluates seven individual variables, including "volume fill of (osteo)chondral defect," "Integration into adjacent cartilage and bone," "surface of the repair tissue," "signal intensity of the repair tissue," "bony defect and bony overgrowth," "presence of edema-like-marrow signal," and "presence of subchondral cysts." Overall, a MOCART 2.0 ankle score between 0 and 100 points may be reached. Two independent readers assessed the 3-T MRI examinations of 48 ankles, who had undergone cartilage repair of a talar cartilage defect using the new MOCART 2.0 ankle score. One of the readers performed two readings. Intra- and interrater reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the overall MOCART 2.0 ankle score.

resultsForty-eight ankles (mean age at surgery 30.2 ± 11.2 years) were evaluated. The overall interrater (ICC = 0.75; 95%CI 0.60-0.85), as well as the intrarater (ICC = 0.83; 95%CI 0.72-0.90) reliability of the MOCART 2.0 ankle score was good. For individual variables the interrater reliability ranged from a kappa value of 0.29 (95%CI 0.01-0.57) for "surface of the repair tissue" to 0.83 (95%CI 0.71-0.95) for "presence of subchondral cysts".

conclusionsThe newly introduced MOCART 2.0 ankle score, which encompasses the distinct anatomy of the ankle joint, demonstrates good intra- and interrater reliability. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The newly introduced MOCART 2.0 ankle score may facilitate the standardized assessment of cartilage repair in the ankle joint and allow an objective comparison of the morphological outcome between alternative treatment options and between different studies. KEY POINTS: This study introduces the MOCART 2.0 ankle score. The MOCART 2.0 ankle score demonstrated good intra- and interrater reliability. Standardized reporting may improve communication between radiologists and other physicians.

Indexed as

AnkleCartilageMRI

Identifiers

PMID38816593
PMCPMC11139805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.