ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
2.0-mm Diameter Arthroscopy versus MRI in Predicting Appropriate Surgical Management of Intra-articular Shoulder Pathology: A Blinded, Prospective Study.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Needle Arthroscopy in Orthopedic Practice: Clinical Applications, Evidence Architecture, and Translational Gaps-A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Needle arthroscopy as an emerging office-based tool: Promising diagnostic value but limited evidence for therapeutic equivalence-A systematic review and frequentist meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
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
Background: Small-bore needle arthroscopy (SNA) has emerged as a minimally invasive diagnostic tool in outpatient orthopaedics, allowing direct intra-articular visualization and serving as a potential alternative to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of a 2.0-mm needle arthroscope with MRI and determine which more accurately predicts appropriate surgical intervention in patients with glenohumeral pathology. Study Design: Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: In this institutional review board-approved, prospective, single-center, blinded study, 30 consecutive patients scheduled for shoulder arthroscopy between May and July 2020 were enrolled. All patients underwent preoperative MRI followed by 2 diagnostic arthroscopies using a 2.0-mm SNA and a standard 4.0-mm arthroscope. Deidentified arthroscopic recordings and MRIs were reviewed by 2 blinded, fellowship-trained orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons. The standard 4.0-mm arthroscope served as the gold standard. Diagnostic agreement and appropriate treatment recommendations-reflected by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes-were assessed for both SNA and MRI. Results: The 2.0-mm diameter arthroscope demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy compared with MRI for most intra-articular shoulder pathologies, with the exception of humeral head chondromalacia. SNA showed higher sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value in evaluating the long head of the biceps (LHB), superior labrum, infraspinatus, subscapularis, and glenoid cartilage. The strongest diagnostic agreement with the standard 4.0-mm arthroscope was observed for LHB lesions (κ = 0.73), subscapularis tears (κ = 0.66), and articular-sided supraspinatus tears (κ = 0.62). For CPT 29827 (arthroscopic rotator cuff repair), SNA yielded a higher PPV (100% vs 83.3%). Conclusion: Small-bore needle arthroscopy using a 2.0-mm platform demonstrated high diagnostic performance in identifying glenohumeral pathology, particularly involving the LHB, subscapularis, and articular-sided supraspinatus. SNA outperformed MRI in predicting the appropriate surgical procedure and may serve as a reliable diagnostic alternative in the outpatient setting.
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.