SynthesisEuropean radiology2025
Diagnostic accuracy of MRI and US for peroneal tendon tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on: Editorial: Peroneal tendon shapes-the case-control design conundrum.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in ankle injuries: a retrospective cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Editorial: Peroneal tendon shapes-the case-control design conundrum.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
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
objectiveThe diagnostic accuracy of US and MRI for identifying peroneal tendon tears is unknown. The aim of this study is to determine the accuracy of these modalities for the diagnosis of peroneal tendon tears. MATERIALS AND
methodsStudies on diagnostic accuracy of MRI or US for peroneus brevis (PB) and/or longus pathology were searched in Scopus, EMBASE, and PubMed. Systematic review was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Pooled diagnostic accuracy of MRI and US were calculated by using a bivariate random-effects model.
resultsTwelve studies were included for analysis. Eight studies reported on MRI, three reported on US, and one study included both. Studies were all at a high risk of bias, with only one study satisfying at least two of the four risk-of-bias criteria. Reported accuracy data was heterogeneous for both MRI and US. For PB tear, US showed higher pooled sensitivity than MRI (US: 93%; 95% CI: 75%, 98%; MRI: 73%; 95% CI: 56%, 87%); and similar pooled specificity to MRI (US: 85%; 95% CI: 55%, 96%; MRI: 88%; 95% CI: 70%, 95%) For peroneus longus, US had high pooled sensitivity (94%; 95% CI: 71%, 99%) and specificity (94%; 95% CI: 79%, 98%), whereas MRI was similarly specific (91%; 95% CI: 76%, 97%) but less sensitive (60%; 95% CI: 35%, 85%).
conclusionUS was observed to be sensitive and specific for peroneal tendon tears, while MRI was found to be specific but insensitive. The scarcity of literature addressing this question and the heterogeneity of the results precluded any confident conclusion of the superiority/inferiority of either modality. KEY POINTS: Question Peroneal tendon tears are a common cause of lateral ankle pain, but the accuracy of MRI and US for identifying these tears is unknown. Finding Pooled data shows US to be both sensitive and specific and MRI to be specific and insensitive for peroneal tendon tears; however, the literature is scarce, at risk of bias, and results are inconsistent. Clinical relevance MRI and US are commonly utilized to assess lateral ankle pain. Though pooled-data suggests that US may be more sensitive, confident conclusion of the diagnostic accuracy of these modalities is limited by the level-of and quality-of the available evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40035861What 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.