ArticleActa neurochirurgica2025
Accuracy of ultrasound and MRI in the diagnosis of common peroneal nerve injuries.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Foot Drop: An Anatomical, Clinical, and Electrodiagnostic Approach to Localization.Journal of spine research and surgery · 2026Article
- Ultrasound of the common peroneal nerve at the knee: a structured scanning protocol.Journal of ultrasonography · 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
backgroundThis study aimed to determine the accuracy of ultrasound (US) and MRI compared to intraoperative findings in patients who underwent surgery for their common peroneal nerve (CPN) injury.
methodsPatients who underwent surgical management of a CPN injury with preoperative US were reviewed. The status of the CPN as interpreted by the radiologist in the preoperative US and MRI were recorded. The intraoperative findings of the CPN were compared to the imaging findings. The CPN was classified as intact, partial injury, or complete transection. The location of the injury, and presence of a neuroma-in-continuity or stump neuroma were recorded. The sensitivity and specificity of US for diagnosis of a complete transection and an intact CPN were calculated.
resultsThirteen patients were included in this study. Preoperative US accurately diagnosed a complete transection in 3 out of 4 patients and an intact CPN in 4 out of 5 patients. MRI did not accurately identify the status of the CPN in any patients. US had 75% sensitivity and 78% specificity for detecting complete transection, and 80% sensitivity and 63% specificity for detecting an intact CPN. The level of injury was correctly identified in 7 out of 13 cases by US and 1 out of 8 cases by MRI. A neuroma was correctly identified in 7 of 11 cases by US and 1 out of 8 cases by MRI.
conclusionUS has a high sensitivity and specificity when diagnosing CPN lesions and was more accurate than 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.