ArticleJSES international2025
Two-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging sequences correlate to three-dimensional computed tomography for evaluation of glenoid bone loss.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To correlate two-dimensional (2D) fast-imaging employing steady-state acquisition (FIESTA) magnetic resonance imaging protocols with three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) for calculation of glenoid bone loss (GBL). FIESTA is a high-resolution protocol with high contrast, high signal-to-noise ratio, and sharp edge definition. Methods: We included patients who underwent a shoulder stabilization procedure from 2010 to 2023 with 2D FIESTA and 2D proton density fat-saturation (PD FS) magnetic resonance arthrogram sequences as well as 3D CT of the shoulder. We excluded patients with history of prior shoulder surgery or posterior instability, if the CT and magnetic resonance imaging were >90 days apart or if there was a documented instability event between imaging studies. Two raters calculated the primary outcome of GBL by the perfect-circle linear method twice for each modality separated by 3 weeks. Intrarater and inter-rater reliabilities were calculated. We analyzed linear regression models and concordance correlation coefficients between modalities. Results: Twelve patients were analyzed. Overall mean GBL by imaging modality was 12.1 ± 11.2% on PD FS, 11.8 ± 10.0% on FIESTA, and 11.5 ± 9.7% on 3D CT. GBL had excellent intrarater and inter-rater reliabilities (>0.9) on all modalities. For GBL, concordance correlation coefficients were 0.982 (95% CI 0.960-0.992) for PD FS vs. CT and 0.998 (95% CI 0.993-0.999) for FIESTA vs. CT. Linear regression models improved both PD FS and FIESTA accuracy to within 0.6% of CT-calculated GBL 95% of the time. Conclusion: 2D FIESTA magnetic resonance arthrogram is a suitable alternative to 3D CT reconstruction for calculation of GBL and slightly outperformed PD FS sequences.
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.