ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Diagnostic performance of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in ankle injuries: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compares the diagnostic performance of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting abnormalities such as ligament tears, tendon injuries, or fractures in the ankle, while also evaluating their clinical utility and limitations.
methodsThis study involved 83 patients with first-time ankle injuries. Surgical exploration served as the reference standard to compare and analyze US and MRI, evaluating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV, %), negative predictive value (NPV, %), accuracy (%), and area under the curve (AUC).
resultsUS demonstrated significant diagnostic advantages for most ankle injuries, achieving 100% across all metrics for anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) injury (κ = 1, AUC = 1). Moreover, US exhibited significantly higher overall diagnostic performance (AUC) compared to MRI for the calcaneofibular ligament (CFL), deltoid ligament (DL), peroneus longus tendon (PLT), and fracture detection. Conversely, MRI showed superior performance for syndesmotic (SDM) injury compared to US, with sensitivity rates of 46.67% versus 33.33% (AUC: 0.658 vs. 0.591), while maintaining 100% specificity for both ATFL injury and fracture. Both modalities demonstrated high sensitivity (100%) and excellent diagnostic value (AUC > 0.9) for tibialis posterior tendon (TPT) injury.
conclusionThis study confirms that US demonstrates superior performance in diagnosing superficial ligament injuries, specifically the ATFL and the CFL. In contrast, MRI is indispensable for evaluating deeper complex structures, such as the SDM and fracture lesions. Both modalities exhibit a complementary relationship in the diagnosis of ankle injuries.
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.