ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2024
Excellent accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of discoid meniscus tears: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2024. 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.
- Structural and Functional Biomechanical Classifications of the Discoid Meniscus.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The diagnostic accuracy of a practical morphometric ratio on MRI for the discoid lateral meniscus.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Beyond the ACL: The Hidden Impact of Ramp Tears on Knee Stability.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2026Review
- Approaching ramp lesions from the different world of posterior knee compartment: A review of evidence with a proposal of a new classification and treatment.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Review
- Excellent accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of discoid meniscus tears: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The discoid meniscus (DM) is distinguished by its thickened, disc-shaped formation, which extends over the tibial plateau. The likelihood of developing osteoarthritis escalates if a DM tear remains undiagnosed and untreated. While DM tears can be diagnosed through arthroscopy, the high cost, invasive nature and limited availability of this procedure highlight the need for a better diagnostic modality. This study aims to determine the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosing DM tears. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to gather articles with at least 10 cases on the comparison of MRI and arthroscopy as the gold standard for DM tear diagnosis. Stata and MetaDisc were used to conduct the statistical analysis. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Results: Five diagnostic performance studies, derived from four original research papers involving 305 patients, were evaluated. Based on the pooled data, the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive limit of detection and negative limit of detection were found to be 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.91) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.90), 32.88 (95% CI, 5.81-186.02), 5.22 (95% CI, 1.71-15.92) and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.09-0.38), respectively. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve with an area under the curve of 0.92 was generated. Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that MRI has excellent sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing DM tears. Despite its lower accuracy compared to arthroscopy, MRI can be used in symptomatic patients as a viable alternative to arthroscopy due to its inherent advantages. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
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.