ArticleRadiology research and practice2025
Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI and Ultrasound in Meniscal Tear Detection: Evaluating Reliability and Limitations Against Arthroscopic Outcomes.
Article in Radiology research and practice, 2025. 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.
- Ultrasonographic Knee Abnormalities and Their Association with Pain in Young Male Handball and Basketball Athletes: A Cross-Sectional Study.Diagnostics (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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Accurate meniscal tear diagnosis is essential for proper knee injury management. While MRI is the gold standard, ultrasound (US) offers a cost-effective alternative. However, its accuracy compared to arthroscopy remains uncertain. This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of US versus MRI, using arthroscopic outcomes as the benchmark for meniscal tear detection. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted on 208 patients aged 18-60 years with suspected meniscal injuries. Each patient underwent both US and MRI, with findings compared to arthroscopy, the gold standard for confirmation. Clinical, imaging and arthroscopic data were systematically recorded and analysed for sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic agreement. The McNemar test was used to assess differences in sensitivity and specificity between US and MRI, while the Results: MRI demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy (91.83%) compared to US (84.62%) in detecting meniscal tears, using arthroscopy as the gold standard. MRI showed superior sensitivity (96.19% vs. 86.67%), specificity (87.38% vs. 82.52%) and agreement ( Conclusion: Overall, MRI demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity compared to US, suggesting that it is a more reliable imaging modality for detecting meniscal tears when arthroscopy is not feasible. In addition, US limitations in detecting complex tear patterns highlight the need for further refinement of US techniques.
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.