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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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).”
From Deep learning approach for evaluating knee MR images: achieving high diagnostic performance for cartilage lesion detection. (2018) · cites this paper as [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
- 10.5435/00124635-200103000-00001 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJM199410063311401 · DOI
- 10.1097/00003086-200208000-00020 · DOI
- 10.1053/joca.2002.0841 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.05.007 · DOI
- 10.1002/art.20489 · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.167.1.8659356 · DOI
- 10.1002/jmri.1880060212 · DOI
- 10.1002/jmri.1880050519 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00256-003-0635-z · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.172.4.10587150 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiology.193.2.7972759 · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791159 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiology.183.3.1584944 · DOI
- 10.1002/jmri.20276 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.11.015 · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.162.1.8273700 · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.169.4.9308470 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199908)10:2<178::AID-JMRI11>3.0.CO;2-W · DOI
- 10.1002/mrm.10488 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiol.2361040747 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.joca.2004.12.008 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.joca.2005.08.002 · DOI
- 10.1080/02841850510012625 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00330-006-0446-4 · DOI
- 10.1055/s-2004-813460 · DOI
- 10.1177/036354658901700410 · DOI
- 10.1002/jmri.20596 · DOI
- 10.1118/1.595711 · DOI
- 10.2307/2529310 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liu, F., Zhou, Z., Samsonov, A., Blankenbaker, D., Larison, W., Kanarek, A., Lian, K., Kambhampati, S., & Kijowski, R. (2018) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2018172986 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
“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-citation
- 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