ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Hip capsular thickness as a marker for inflammatory conditions (capsulitis): an MRI-based case-control study.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether MRI can differentiate hips with nonspecific inflammatory conditions from controls based on measurements of the capsule and to identify the most significant measurements.
methodsIn this retrospective and case-control study, we reviewed hip MRIs containing the term "capsulitis" in the reports. Cases with other known diagnoses or confounding joint pathologies were excluded. Controls were asymptomatic hips with normal laboratory results. Three musculoskeletal radiologists independently reviewed the studies, assessing for qualitative (edema, enhancement, effusion, synovitis, and subjective thickening) and quantitative (capsular thickness in standardized planes) parameters. Interobserver agreement, group comparisons, and optimal cutoffs were analyzed.
resultsThe final study group comprised 38 cases, and the control group included 51 matched subjects. Inter-reader agreement was moderate to excellent. For capsular thickness, ICC ranged from 0.49 (posterior sagittal) to 0.87 (anterior sagittal). For qualitative findings, kappa ranged from 0.59 (capsular enhancement) to 0.84 (joint effusion), the greatest being capsular thickening and effusion. All planes showed significantly larger capsular thickness in cases vs. controls (p < 0.05). Sensitivity reached 85.2% for anterior sagittal measurement (mean, 6.27 vs. 4.58 mm), and specificity reached 84% for lateral coronal (6.53 vs. 4.13 mm). Among cases, capsular signal abnormality was observed in 89.2% of cases, pericapsular edema in 91.9%, capsular enhancement in 97.3%, pericapsular enhancement in 94.6%, joint effusion in 81.1%, synovitis in 89.2%, and capsular thickening in 100% of cases.
conclusionsOur study reveals increased hip capsular thickness in nonspecific inflammatory conditions of the hip (capsulitis), both for qualitative and quantitative assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40849591What 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.