Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42525074›Full record

ArticleSkeletal radiology2026

Comparison of accelerated MRI protocol approaches for clinical assessment of the knee.

Ananya Goyal, James MacKay, Matthew Petterson, Rianne van der Heijden, Kathryn Stevens, Min Yoon, Tie Liang, Jason Wong, Akshay Chaudhari, Feliks Kogan

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Skeletal radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ananya GoyalDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. agoyal5@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5023-998X
James MacKayDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Matthew PettersonDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Rianne van der HeijdenDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Kathryn StevensDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Min YoonDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Tie LiangDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Jason WongDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Akshay ChaudhariDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Feliks KoganDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance and image quality of four accelerated knee MRI protocols (~ 6 minutes) compared with a conventional 2D fast spin echo (FSE) protocol (12-15 minutes). SUBJECTS AND

methodsIn this prospective single-center study, 32 adults with knee pain and/or self-reported osteoarthritis underwent 3T MRI using five protocols: conventional 2D FSE, 2D FSE with deep learning (DL) reconstruction, 3D Cube, 3D quantitative double-echo steady-state (qDESS), and thin-slice 2D FSE. Five radiologists independently evaluated joint pathologies. Interreader and intermethod agreement (Gwet's AC1), positive and negative percent agreement (PPA and NPA), and diagnostic image quality (Likert scale; Friedman test, p < 0.05) were assessed.

resultsOverall, 12/160 protocol scans were excluded due to motion artifacts. Interreader agreement was similar across protocols but varied by tissues. Intermethod agreement between accelerated protocols and the conventional protocol approached the repeatability of the conventional protocol. NPA remained consistently high across tissues and protocols. PPA was more variable, particularly for synovitis and effusion, whereas for bone marrow, cartilage, and meniscus, PPA for the DL, Cube, and qDESS protocols approached the repeatability of the reference protocol. For all accelerated protocols except the thin-slice approach, diagnostic image quality was diagnostically acceptable or better in > 94% of examinations.

conclusionAccelerated 2D DL, 3D Cube, and 3D qDESS protocols demonstrated diagnostic agreement and diagnostic image quality comparable to the conventional knee MRI protocol while reducing scan time to ~ 6 min. These approaches may serve as practical alternatives to conventional protocols, with potential benefits for clinical workflow and patient experience.

Indexed as

Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedKnee JointMagnetic Resonance ImagingOsteoarthritis, KneeAdultAgedFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsAccelerated knee MRIDeep learning reconstructionDiagnostic performanceFast MRI protocolsMusculoskeletal imagingOsteoarthritis

Identifiers

PMID42525074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.