Cited by 170Knee injuries and reconstruction techniquesOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

Comparison of 1.5- and 3.0-T MR Imaging for Evaluating the Articular Cartilage of the Knee Joint

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the diagnostic performance of 1.5- and 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging protocols for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint in symptomatic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was performed with a waiver of informed consent from the institutional review board. The study group consisted of 200 symptomatic patients undergoing MR examination of the knee at 1.5 T (61 men, 39 women; mean age, 38.9 years) or 3.0 T (52 men, 48 women; mean age, 39.1 years), who also underwent subsequent arthroscopic knee surgery. All MR examinations consisted of multiplanar fast spin-echo sequences with similar tissue contrast at 1.5 and 3.0 T. All articular surfaces were graded at arthroscopy by using the Noyes classification system. Three musculoskeletal radiologists retrospectively and independently graded all articular surfaces seen at MR imaging by using a similar classification system. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the 1.5- and 3.0-T MR protocols for detecting cartilage lesions were determined by using arthroscopy as the reference standard. The z test was used to compare sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values at 1.5 and 3.0 T. RESULTS: For all readers combined, the respective sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MR imaging for detecting cartilage lesions were 69.3%, 78.0%, and 74.5% at 1.5 T (n = 241) and 70.5%, 85.9%, and 80.1% at 3.0 T (n = 226). The MR imaging protocol had significantly higher specificity and accuracy (P < .05) but not higher sensitivity (P = .73) for detecting cartilage lesions at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T. CONCLUSION: A 3.0-T MR protocol has improved diagnostic performance for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint in symptomatic patients when compared with a 1.5-T protocol.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2503080822

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Interobserver agreement between fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists for detecting cartilage lesions within the knee joint using the fast spin-echo and T2 map sequences has been reported in previous studies.

    “Interobserver agreement between fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists for detecting cartilage lesions within the knee joint using the fast spin-echo and T2 map sequences has been reported in previous studies (11,35).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. 10.5435/00124635-200103000-00001 · DOI
  2. 10.1056/NEJM199410063311401 · DOI
  3. 10.1097/00003086-200208000-00020 · DOI
  4. 10.1053/joca.2002.0841 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.05.007 · DOI
  6. 10.1002/art.20489 · DOI
  7. 10.2214/ajr.167.1.8659356 · DOI
  8. 10.1002/jmri.1880060212 · DOI
  9. 10.1002/jmri.1880050519 · DOI
  10. 10.1007/s00256-003-0635-z · DOI
  11. 10.2214/ajr.172.4.10587150 · DOI
  12. 10.1148/radiology.193.2.7972759 · DOI
  13. 10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791159 · DOI
  14. 10.1148/radiology.183.3.1584944 · DOI
  15. 10.1002/jmri.20276 · DOI
  16. Potter HG, Linklater JM, Allen AA, Hannafin JA, Haas SB. Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage in the knee: an evaluation with use of fast-spin-echo imaging.J Bone Joint Surg Am1998;80:1276–1284. · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.11.015 · DOI
  18. 10.2214/ajr.162.1.8273700 · DOI
  19. 10.2214/ajr.169.4.9308470 · DOI
  20. 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199908)10:2<178::AID-JMRI11>3.0.CO;2-W · DOI
  21. 10.1002/mrm.10488 · DOI
  22. 10.1148/radiol.2361040747 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.joca.2004.12.008 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.joca.2005.08.002 · DOI
  25. 10.1080/02841850510012625 · DOI
  26. 10.1007/s00330-006-0446-4 · DOI
  27. 10.1055/s-2004-813460 · DOI
  28. 10.1177/036354658901700410 · DOI
  29. 10.1002/jmri.20596 · DOI
  30. 10.1118/1.595711 · DOI
  31. 10.2307/2529310 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kijowski, R., Blankenbaker, D. G., Davis, K. W., Shinki, K., Kaplan, L. D., & De Smet, A. A.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
Radiology
Published
2009-03
Volume
250
Issue
3
Pages
839-848
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W1976352585
Cited by
170
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
FWCI
15.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Osteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
knee cartilage, cartilage damage, 3T MRI, 1.5T MRI, diagnostic accuracy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Cartilage, Articular, Female, Humans, Image Enhancement, Knee Injuries, Knee Joint, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Osteoarthritis, Knee, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review