ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of ultrasound and MRI shows equivalent accuracy and reliability in acromial index measurement.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Ultrasonographic Knee Abnormalities and Their Association with Pain in Young Male Handball and Basketball Athletes: A Cross-Sectional Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of rotator cuff tears using anatomical parameters: a retrospective cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The acromial index, a radiological parameter assessing the subacromial space, is vital for diagnosing conditions like rotator cuff tears and subacromial impingement syndrome as the acromial Index influences the choice of therapy. Traditionally determined via X-ray, AI is increasingly assessed using MRI due to its superior image quality. However, MRI's cost and limited availability highlight the need for alternative methods. Ultrasound offers a promising, cost-effective alternative, providing real-time imaging without radiation exposure. This study aims to compare the accuracy and reliability of ultrasound-based AI determination with MRI. This retrospective study enrolled patients with shoulder complaints who underwent both MRI and ultrasound examinations between November 2021 and October 2022. Inclusion criteria included appropriate MRI and ultrasound images of the shoulder joint. AI was measured on MRI images and a modified AI was assessed using ultrasound. Statistical analyses evaluated the accuracy and reliability of both methods, focusing on intra- and interobserver consistency. A total of 113 patients (53.2 years average age, 31.3% female) were included. The mean MRI-determined AI was 0.65 (SD 0.065), with 15.6% showing pathological AI. Ultrasound-determined modified acromial index averaged 0.74 (SD 0.122), with 33% showing pathological modified acromial index. Comparative analysis showed no significant difference between MRI and ultrasound measurements (p = 0.237). Both methods demonstrated high intra- and interobserver reliability (ICC values > 0.9). Ultrasound-assisted AI determination is a valid, reproducible, and reliable alternative to MRI. Its advantages include cost-effectiveness, accessibility, and absence of ionizing radiation, making it particularly useful in resource-limited settings.
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.