ArticleJSES international2025
Magnetic resonance imaging vs. two- and three-dimensional computed tomography scans for assessment of glenoid inclination and version.
Article in JSES international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in AI-based diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease using MRI: a comprehensive survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
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
Background: Accurate glenoid component placement is crucial for anatomic (aTSA) or reverse (rTSA) total shoulder arthroplasty. Preoperative glenoid assessment in computed tomography (CT) scans with or without planning software seems to be the established method to plan implant positions. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans can also display the glenoid bone for preoperative assessment while reducing radiation exposure. Therefore, the objective of this study was to manually assess the glenoid version and inclination in 2D MRI and CT scans in cases with degenerative shoulder pathologies. The results were compared to those of an automated 3D planning software to validate the imaging modality for preoperative glenoid assessment. Methods: MRI and CT scans of 146 patients (n = 41 aTSA; n = 105 rTSA) were included in this retrospective, single-center study. Glenoid version and inclination were measured manually according to Friedman et al and Maurer et al on CT and MRI scans by two observers. Subsequently, the results were compared to the automated measurements performed by planning software. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed to compare the measured angles, and the interobserver and intraobserver reliability were calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficients. The level of significance was set at Results: The average glenoid inclination measured in CT scans was 7.94° ± 7.33°, in MRI scans it was 8.56° ± 7.34°, and in automated planning software it was 7.87° ± 7.60°. The analysis of variance revealed significant differences in mean inclination between 2D MRI and 2D CT ( Conclusion: Preoperative assessment of glenoid version and inclination is crucial in ensuring precise implant positioning and orientation in aTSA and rTSA. This study observed a significant level of concordance between manual and automated measuring techniques utilizing MRI and CT scans. The mean glenoid inclination exhibited a statistically significant difference of less than 1° across the assessment modalities, and no difference for glenoid version was noted. It seems to be questionable if this finding is clinically relevant. MRI may serve as a viable and safe option for assessing glenoid morphology, version, and inclination if CT scans are not available.
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.