SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Evaluating the diagnostic performance of MRI-based signs for identification of meniscus posterior root tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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.
- Standardized MRI nomenclature for knee meniscal lesions: SSR consensus panel report.Skeletal radiology · 2026Review
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
purposeTo investigate the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based signs for meniscus posterior root tears (MPRTs). MATERIALS AND
methodsA literature search was performed to identify original studies published prior to May 15, 2025 that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of MRI-based signs for MPRTs. All meta-analyses were performed using Meta-DiSc 1.4 software and StataMP 18.
resultsThis meta-analysis evaluated 9 MRI-based signs across 8 studies (1430 patients, 1,533 MRI examinations). In terms of pooled sensitivity, the cleft sign and ghost sign were ≥ 0.8, while the radial tear sign was only 0.6. The cleft sign and/or truncated triangle sign showed the highest sensitivity (0.91). In terms of pooled specificity, the cleft sign and ghost sign were ≥ 0.85. The radial tear sign showed the highest specificity (0.97). In terms of pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR), the radial tear sign was the highest (18.56). The cleft sign and ghost sign were ≥ 10. In terms of pooled negative likelihood ratio (NLR), the cleft sign and/or truncated triangle sign was the lowest (0.13). The cleft sign and ghost sign were ≤ 0.21, while the radial tear sign was 0.41. In the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), the ghost sign was the highest (0.97). The cleft sign and radial tear sign were ≥ 0.9. In the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), the cleft sign was the highest (85.32). The ghost sign, radial tear sign and the cleft sign and/or truncated triangle sign were all ≥ 50. Subgroup analyses revealed no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe cleft sign demonstrated the best overall diagnostic performance. High-sensitivity signs are recommended for initial screening, whereas high-specificity signs are indicated for diagnostic confirmation. The ghost sign and cleft sign, with their high AUC and DOR, serve as core diagnostic criteria.
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.