Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40297094›Full record

ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2025

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is an Effective First-Line Noninvasive Tool for Meniscal Tear Detection: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis With Knee Arthroscopy.

Ahmed Mohsen Abbas El-Hagrasy, Aaron Jijimon Theckayil, Mohammad Adeel Khan, Hammad Naqi Khan, Ahsan Javaid Butt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. [2024 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Clinical Practice Guideline: An interpretation of the diagnosis and management of acute isolated meniscal injury].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ahmed Mohsen Abbas El-HagrasySchool of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland-Medical University of Bahrain, Busaiteen, Bahrain.
Aaron Jijimon TheckayilSchool of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland-Medical University of Bahrain, Busaiteen, Bahrain.
Mohammad Adeel KhanDepartment of Orthopedics, King Hamad University Hospital, Busaiteen, Bahrain.
Hammad Naqi KhanDepartment of Orthopedics, King Hamad University Hospital, Busaiteen, Bahrain.
Ahsan Javaid ButtSchool of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland-Medical University of Bahrain, Busaiteen, Bahrain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with intraoperative knee arthroscopic findings for identifying or diagnosing meniscal tears. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent MRI and knee arthroscopy showing either medial meniscus (MM) or lateral meniscus (LM) tears at a single university hospital. The preoperative MRI findings of patients were compared with intraoperative arthroscopic findings to determine the presence, location, and morphology of meniscal tears. The results of arthroscopy were considered the definitive diagnosis. Results: A total of 543 patients were initially identified. Of these, 220 met the study eligibility criteria and were included. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MRI in relation to arthroscopy were 94.29% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.05%-97.50%), 78.75% (95% CI, 68.17%-87.11%), and 88.64% (95% CI, 83.68%-92.51%), respectively, for MM tears and 76.74% (95% CI, 66.39%-85.18%), 94.03% (95% CI, 88.58%-97.39%), and 87.27% (95% CI, 82.13%-91.37%), respectively, for LM tears. Complex tears were the most common morphology of tears, and the posterior horn was the most common location. Conclusions: MRI is an effective first-line noninvasive diagnostic tool for investigating meniscal tears, with overall diagnostic accuracies of 88.64% for MM tears and 87.27% for LM tears. MM tears had the highest incidence, particularly in the posterior horn. MRI showed high sensitivity for MM tears, high specificity for LM tears, and substantial agreement with arthroscopy in diagnosing both MM and LM tears. However, MRI's specificity for MM tears and sensitivity for LM tears were lower, suggesting that it may not be as reliable in confirming MM tears or ruling out LM tears. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Identifiers

PMID40297094
PMCPMC12034043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.