ArticleVeterinary sciences2025
Cross-Modality Diagnostic Agreement in Canine Medial Coronoid Disease in a Screening Population: Radiographs vs. CT in 424 Elbow Joints.
Article in Veterinary sciences, 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.
- Effects of recumbency and tube current on image quality of canine elbow computed tomography.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Coronoid process sclerosis as a reproducible and highly heritable risk predictor of medial coronoid disease in labrador retrievers.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
Abstract
Diagnostic imaging is a crucial non-invasive tool for evaluating canine elbow joints, particularly for screening and treatment planning of medial coronoid disease (MCD). Radiography remains the most accessible and widely used screening modality, but its diagnostic accuracy varies significantly. Sensitivity values reported in previous studies vary depending on factors such as study population, imaging technique, and interpretation criteria. This study compared four measures (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value) of radiography with a more advanced imaging method, computed tomography (CT), which provides more detailed images of bones. The results showed that radiography correctly identified 65% of the cases (17/26), while missing some of the affected joints. Furthermore, 7% of the healthy joints (29/398) were misdiagnosed as diseased, leading to a specificity of 93% (369/398). For a disease prevalence of 6% (26/424), the positive and negative predictive value of radiography were 37% (17/46) and 98% (369/378), respectively. Overall, when CT is available, it is the preferred technique for screening. In cases where it is not available, it is important to have an idea of the sensitivity and specificity, but also of the positive and negative predictive value, especially at low prevalences. These results help veterinarians make better decisions when screening for elbow problems in dogs.
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.