ReviewJSES international2025
Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for detecting superior labrum anterior to posterior lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in JSES international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis appraises the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions, an area where effectiveness remains uncertain. It aims to determine if MRI is accurate enough to identify or rule out these lesions. Methods: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for SLAP lesions, we conducted a thorough search of the MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to January 6, 2025. We included original studies that compared MRI findings with those of arthroscopy or open surgery (used as the reference standard). Stata and MetaDisc software were used for statistical analyses and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. Results: The meta-analysis included 33 studies from 30 original papers, encompassing 2,916 patients. The pooled sensitivity for MRI detection of SLAP lesions was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.86) and the specificity was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97). Other pooled metrics included a positive likelihood ratio of 6.82 (95% CI, 4.06-11.45), negative likelihood ratio of 0.34 (95% CI, 0.25-0.45), diagnostic odds ratio of 23.62 (95% CI, 12.76-43.70), and an area under the curve of 0.94. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that MRI exhibits moderate sensitivity and excellent specificity and accuracy, suggesting that MRI is a valuable tool for confirming SLAP lesions. However, it cannot definitively rule them out on its own. Therefore, arthroscopy and open surgery remain the gold standard for diagnosing these lesions.
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.