ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2024
A Comparative Study on Correlation between Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Arthroscopic Findings in the Knee Joint Injuries.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The knee joint primarily allows for flexion and extension and is essentially a hinge joint. The knee joint, like all hinge joints, is strengthened by collateral ligaments - one on each side of the joint. Objective: Our study sought to investigate potential correlations between arthroscopy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRl) examination in the diagnosis of traumatic diseases of the knee. Methods and Materials: A prospective study was conducted on 30 persons who showed signs of having traumatic knee disease. Following a comprehensive evaluation of the patient s medical history and current state of health, we opted to undergo an arthroscopic evaluation and knee MRL. Results: The sensitivity of the MRI was 93.87%, the specificity was 91.54%, the accuracy was 92.50%, and the negative predictive value was 95.58% when compared to arthroscopic inspection as the gold standard. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that MRIs frequently misdiagnose individuals with multiple knee injuries or fail to detect a lesion while doing a diagnostic evaluation. Therefore, if the MRI comes out normal, there is no reason to deny the patient arthroscopy. Due to this MRI flaw, researchers have determined that arthroscopy can be performed following a comprehensive clinical assessment without the need for an 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.