Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40952518›Full record

SynthesisSkeletal radiology2026

MRI versus CT for glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Emanuela Mendes Junqueira de Barros, Renata Vidal Leão, Sarah Verdan, Marília da Cruz Fagundes, Bruno Murad, Gustavo da Fonseca Monjardim, Thiago de Gautier Oliveira do Amarante de Paulo, Stephan Altmayer, Giovanni Brondani Torri

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Emanuela Mendes Junqueira de BarrosDepartment of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Sirio Libanês Hospital, São Paulo, SP, 01308-050, Brazil. emanuelamendes9@yahoo.com.br.
Renata Vidal LeãoDepartment of Musculoskeletal Radiology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa, USA.
Sarah VerdanDepartment of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Hospital Universitário de Juiz de Fora - UFJF, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, 36038-330, Brazil.
Marília da Cruz FagundesImaging Diagnostic Center, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, 01323-020, Brazil.
Bruno MuradBarbacena School of Medicine, Barbacena, Minas Gerais, 30260130, Brazil.
Gustavo da Fonseca MonjardimDepartment of Radiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA.
Thiago de Gautier Oliveira do Amarante de PauloDepartment of Radiology, Inrad - Faculdade de Medicina de São Paulo - USP SP, São Paulo, 05403-010, Brazil.
Stephan AltmayerDepartment of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaing, Stanford University, California, 94304, USA.
Giovanni Brondani TorriDepartment of Radiology, University of Florida, Florida, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically assess whether MRI-based measurements of glenoid bone loss (GBL) are comparable to CT in patients with shoulder instability.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase for studies comparing GBL measurements between CT and MRI through May 16, 2024. We performed subgroup analyses based on 2D versus 3D imaging and linear versus area measurement methods. We conducted statistical analysis using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1, applying a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference.

resultsEleven studies were included, totaling 492 shoulders. Of these, 119 shoulders were evaluated using 3D MRI versus 3D CT, 126 using 2D MRI versus 2D CT, 292 using the linear method, and 149 using the area method. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in GBL measurements between MRI and CT (mean difference -0.05; 95% CI: -0.26 to 0.15; p = 0.61). Subgroup analyses also showed no significant differences (p = 0.94 for 3D, p = 0.14 for 2D, p = 0.67 for linear, p = 0.46 for area, and p = 0.51 comparing linear vs area methods).

conclusionsMRI provides GBL measurements comparable to CT across various imaging protocols including 2D and 3D approaches and the linear and area methods. MRI may be sufficient as the sole imaging modality for comprehensive preoperative evaluation in patients with shoulder instability.

Indexed as

Glenoid CavityJoint InstabilityMagnetic Resonance ImagingShoulder JointTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalComputed tomographyGlenoid bone lossMagnetic resonance imagingShoulder instability

Identifiers

PMID40952518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.