ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Evaluating diagnostic consistency: intra and interobserver agreement in rotator cuff tear classification using ultrasound videos.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2026. 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.
- Ultrasound Measurement of Plantar Fascia Thickness: A Learning Curve Analysis Between a Novice and an Expert Examiner.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveUltrasound (US) is a more accessible alternative to MRI for rotator cuff tear (RCT) assessment. Rapid US can identify RCTs, but accurate US interpretation remains challenging, even for experts. We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study to evaluate intraobserver and interobserver agreement and accuracy in RCT detection with US between expert and non-expert readers. MATERIALS AND
methodsLong-axis cine sweeps of supraspinatus tendon from 138 patients with suspected RCTs were analyzed and compared to corresponding MRI results (reference standard). Three non-experts (graduate student, medical student, radiology resident) and three experts (fellowship-trained musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologist, MSK sonographer, and radiology fellow) independently classified tendons as normal, full-thickness tear, or partial-thickness tear by predefined criteria.
resultsFor all-tear detection (ATD), expert accuracy (%) ranged from 68.8 (95% CI, 61.1-76.5) to 84.8% (78.8-90.9), and non-expert accuracy from 63.0 (54.9-71.1) to 79.7% (73.0-86.4). For full-thickness tear detection (FTTD), expert accuracy ranged from 75.4 (68.2-82.6) to 87.0% (81.4-92.6), and non-expert accuracy from 73.9 (66.6-81.2) to 79.0% (72.2-85.8). Interobserver agreement for ATD was moderate among experts (Light's kappa (
conclusionUltrasound readers of all experience levels accurately identified over 80% of RCTs when compared with MRI. Expert readers achieved higher accuracy, sensitivity, and reliability than non-experts. Ultrasound reliably detects RCTs and remains the preferred imaging modality for its accessibility and patient comfort, underscoring the need for standardization, training, and technological improvements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40874990What 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.