ArticleEFORT open reviews2024
Deep learning models for tendinopathy detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic tests.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 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.
- Exploring the digital landscape: A scoping review of Achilles tendinopathy education on public websites and in randomised controlled trials.Clinical rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Association between autologous blood transfusion and serum creatinine in patients with acute Stanford-A aortic dissection based on a retrospective study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Machine and deep learning models for ligament injury recognition: a systematic review and meta-analysis of imaging and novel diagnostic techniques.EFORT open reviews · 2026Article
- The Rise of Artificial Intelligence in Orthopedics: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Different deep-learning models have been employed to aid in the diagnosis of musculoskeletal pathologies. The diagnosis of tendon pathologies could particularly benefit from applying these technologies. The objective of this study is to assess the performance of deep learning models in diagnosing tendon pathologies using various imaging modalities. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted, with searches performed on MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Lilacs, and SciELO. The QUADAS-2 tool was employed to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic measures, such as sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive and negative likelihood ratios, area under the curve, and summary receiver operating characteristic, were included using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity and subgroup analyses were also conducted. All statistical analyses and plots were generated using the R software package. The PROSPERO ID is CRD42024506491. Results: Eleven deep-learning models from six articles were analyzed. In the random effects models, the sensitivity and specificity of the algorithms for detecting tendon conditions were 0.910 (95% CI: 0.865; 0.940) and 0.954 (0.909; 0.977). The PLR, NLR, lnDOR, and AUC estimates were found to be 37.075 (95%CI: 4.654; 69.496), 0.114 (95%CI: 0.056; 0.171), 5.160 (95% CI: 4.070; 6.250) with a (P < 0.001), and 96%, respectively. Conclusion: The deep-learning algorithms demonstrated a high level of accuracy level in detecting tendon anomalies. The overall robust performance suggests their potential application as a valuable complementary tool in diagnosing medical images.
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.