Observational studyJNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association2025
Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Diagnosis of Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Meniscus Tear: An Observational Study.
Observational study in JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Magnetic resonance imaging is used for the diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus tears but its value in the diagnosis of these pathologies is limited. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus tears. Methods: This was an observational cross-section study conducted at a tertiary-level hospital in Nepal. The patients operated on for anterior cruciate ligament and/or meniscus tear were considered for the study. The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging was calculated by comparing its findings with those in arthroscopy. Results: The total number of cases were 134. The sensitivity and specificity were as follows: medial meniscus 88.81%, 95.10%; lateral meniscus 57.12%, 95.14%; anterior cruciate ligament 96.12%, 75%. The sensitivity and specificity of the injuries for 3 Tesla vs 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging were as follows: medial meniscus 89.20%, 97.84% vs 87.52%, 87.52%; lateral meniscus 65.25%, 100% vs 30%, 90.91%; anterior cruciate ligament 96.12%, 75% vs 96.12, 75%. Conclusions: The sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing anterior cruciate ligament injury was higher while specificity was higher for lateral meniscus injury. The study also showed that 3 Tesla was better than 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing meniscus injury.
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.