ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination for the assessment of popliteal cysts: a meta-analysis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Popliteal cysts are common knee cystic lesions and a potential risk factor for knee osteoarthritis, but the vast majority are asymptomatic. Early diagnosis is crucial for effective management. Physical examination is a convenient, non-invasive, and cost-free diagnostic tool, but its accuracy for popliteal cysts remains controversial. This meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic value of physical examination for popliteal cysts. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched for studies on physical examination for popliteal cyst diagnosis from inception to November 30, 2025. Study quality was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Results: Ten studies involving 542 patients (720 knee joints) were included. Physical examination showed an area under the curve of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91), sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.49-0.89), specificity of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.65-0.97), positive likelihood ratio of 6.3 (95% CI: 2.0-19.5), negative likelihood ratio of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14-0.62), and diagnostic odds ratio of 21 (95% CI: 5-84). Sensitivity analysis confirmed result stability. Conclusion: Physical examination demonstrates moderate diagnostic accuracy for popliteal cysts. Given the often asymptomatic nature of small cysts and the low clinical burden, physical examination is recommended as a preliminary screening tool when imaging modalities like ultrasonography are unavailable. Level of evidence: Level 2, diagnostic meta-analysis based on studies with reference standards.
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.