The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Clinical Utility and Diagnostic Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Identification of Early and Advanced Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
Background: Current diagnostic strategies for detection of structural articular cartilage abnormalities, the earliest structural signs of osteoarthritis, often do not capture the condition until it is too far advanced for the most potential benefit of noninvasive interventions. Purpose: To systematically review the literature relative to the following questions: (1) Is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) a valid, sensitive, specific, accurate, and reliable instrument to identify knee articular cartilage abnormalities compared with arthroscopy? (2) Is MRI a sensitive tool that can be utilized to identify early cartilage degeneration? Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic search was performed in November 2010 using PubMed MEDLINE (from 1966), CINAHL (from 1982), SPORTDiscus (from 1985), SCOPUS (from 1996), and EMBASE (from 1974) databases. Results: Fourteen level I and 13 level II studies were identified that met inclusion criteria and provided information related to diagnostic performance of MRI compared with arthroscopic evaluation. The diagnostic performance of MRI demonstrated a large range of sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies. The sensitivity for identifying articular cartilage abnormalities in the knee joint was reported between 26% and 96%. Specificity and accuracy were reported between 50% and 100% and between 49% and 94%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for identifying early osteoarthritis were reported between 0% and 86%, 48% and 95%, and 5% and 94%, respectively. As a result of inconsistencies between imaging techniques and methodological shortcomings of many of the studies, a meta-analysis was not performed, and it was difficult to fully synthesize the information to state firm conclusions about the diagnostic performance of MRI. Conclusion: There is evidence in some MRI protocols that MRI is a relatively valid, sensitive, specific, accurate, and reliable clinical tool for identifying articular cartilage degeneration. Because of heterogeneity of MRI sequences, it is not possible to make definitive conclusions regarding its global clinical utility for guiding diagnosis and treatment strategies. Clinical Relevance: Traumatic sports injuries to the knee may be significant precursor events to early onset of posttraumatic osteoarthritis. Magnetic resonance imaging may aid in early identification of structural injuries to articular cartilage as evidenced by articular cartilage degeneration grading.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The reference standard for the presence and absence of cartilage lesions in each image patch was the interpretation provided by a musculoskeletal radiologist rather than arthroscopy.
“Furthermore, the reference standard for the presence and absence of cartilage lesions in each image patch was the interpretation provided by a musculoskeletal radiologist rather than arthroscopy, which has higher sensitivity for detecting cartilage lesions (9).”
From Deep learning approach for evaluating knee MR images: achieving high diagnostic performance for cartilage lesion detection. (2018) · cites this paper as [9]
MRI with morphologic cartilage imaging sequences has high specificity but only moderate sensitivity for detecting cartilage lesions within the knee joint.
“MRI with morphologic cartilage imaging sequences has been shown to have high specificity but only moderate sensitivity for detecting cartilage lesions within the knee joint (9,10).”
From Deep learning approach for evaluating knee MR images: achieving high diagnostic performance for cartilage lesion detection. (2018) · cites this paper as [9]
Diagnostic performance of MRI for cartilage lesions is highly dependent on reader expertise, and only moderate interobserver agreement between readers has been reported in most studies.
“Diagnostic performance is highly dependent on the level of reader expertise, and only moderate interobserver agreement between readers has been reported in most studies (9).”
From Deep learning approach for evaluating knee MR images: achieving high diagnostic performance for cartilage lesion detection. (2018) · cites this paper as [9]
The high sensitivity of the cartilage lesion detection system is particularly favorable because the main limitation of MRI for evaluating articular cartilage, even by experienced musculoskeletal radiologists, is its relatively low sensitivity for identifying superficial cartilage lesions.
“The high sensitivity of the cartilage lesion detection system is particularly favorable, because the main limitation of MRI for evaluating articular cartilage (even by experienced musculoskeletal radiologists) is its relatively low sensitivity for identifying superficial cartilage lesions (9).”
From Deep learning approach for evaluating knee MR images: achieving high diagnostic performance for cartilage lesion detection. (2018) · cites this paper as [9]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 94
- 10.1002/art.1780290816 · DOI · Paper page
- Altman RD, 2010, Am J Manag Care, S41
- 10.1055/s-2007-1015453 · DOI
- 10.1007/s003300050646 · DOI
- Blackburn WD, 1994, J Rheumatol, 21, 675
- 10.1053/joca.1999.0303 · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.172.4.10587150 · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.162.1.8273700 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiology.203.2.9114112 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00198391 · DOI
- 10.1148/rg.311105084 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00241832 · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.169.4.9308475 · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.167.1.8659356 · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.165.2.7618561 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiology.215.3.r00jn20846 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiol.2451060990 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00330-002-1557-1 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiol.2322030976 · DOI
- 10.1002/art.20489 · DOI
- 10.1177/03635465990270041301 · DOI
- Ficat RP, 1979, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 144, 55
- 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.11.015 · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.168.2.9016245 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00167-003-0393-4 · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.163.3.8079858 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.10.020 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00431036 · DOI
- 10.1002/jmri.20276 · DOI
- 10.1123/jpah.6.5.638 · DOI
- 10.1016/0720-048X(95)00681-F · DOI
- 10.1016/0749-8063(92)90062-G · DOI
- 10.1016/0749-8063(90)90092-R · DOI
- 10.1002/mrm.10424 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiology.183.3.1584944 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.02.001 · DOI
- 10.3928/0147-7447-20000601-13 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiol.2401050077 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiol.2503080822 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1148/radiol.2511081133 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1148/radiol.09091011 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiol.2523090028 · DOI
- 10.1097/00004728-199403000-00009 · DOI
- 10.2174/1874325000802010019 · DOI
- 10.1002/art.23176 · DOI
- 10.1002/1529-0131(199805)41:5<778::AID-ART4>3.0.CO;2-V · DOI
- 10.1002/jmri.1059 · DOI
- 10.3109/02841851003662772 · DOI
- 10.1177/036354659602400512 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.crad.2009.07.008 · DOI
- 10.1177/0363546507307396 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/art.20589 · DOI
- 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.136 · DOI
- 10.1055/s-2007-972835 · DOI
- Macarini L, 2003, Radiol Med, 105, 296
- 10.1136/bjsm.2009.069526 · DOI
- 10.2106/00004623-198264030-00022 · DOI
- 10.1002/jor.1100130603 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00256-003-0635-z · DOI
- 10.1016/S0730-725X(99)00033-8 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199908)10:2<178::AID-JMRI11>3.0.CO;2-W · DOI
- 10.1007/s002560100330 · DOI
- 10.1259/0007-1285-65-776-662 · DOI
- 10.1186/1752-2897-2-4 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00167-005-0013-6 · DOI
- 10.1177/036354658901700410 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0049-0172(03)00082-9 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.joca.2004.12.005 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0749-8063(05)80090-8 · DOI
- 10.1097/00003086-197507000-00024 · DOI
- Portney LG, 2009, Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice
- 10.2106/00004623-199809000-00005 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiology.198.1.8539380 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00364038 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiology.193.2.7972759 · DOI
- 10.1148/radiology.201.3.8939241 · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.169.4.9308470 · DOI
- 10.2214/ajr.184.6.01841744 · DOI
- Shahriaree H, 1985, Contemp Orthop, 11, 27
- 10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791159 · DOI
- 10.1177/036354659101900414 · DOI
- 10.1302/0301-620X.75B1.8421033 · DOI
- 10.1002/jmri.1880060608 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF01565475 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.12.027 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2474-11-75 · DOI
- 10.1258/la.2007.06041e · DOI
- 10.1148/radiol.2471070688 · DOI
- 10.1002/art.21388 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00256-009-0683-0 · DOI
- 10.1097/01.blo.0000167670.03197.c2 · DOI
- 10.1097/BLO.0b013e31802c9098 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/jmri.20193 · DOI
- 10.1136/ard.2009.113100 · DOI
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Quatman, C. E., Hettrich, C. M., Schmitt, L. C., & Spindler, K. P.
- Affiliations
- Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Quatman, Carmen E.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Sports Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1557-1568
- ISSN
- 0363-5465 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3365
- PMC
- PMC3782308
- OpenAlex
- W2079792507
- Cited by
- 84
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- The American Journal of Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR056259, R01AR053684)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Osteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hip disorders and treatments
- Keywords
- magnetic resonance imaging, articular cartilage degeneration, early osteoarthritis detection, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, post-traumatic osteoarthritis, sports injuries
- MeSH terms
- Cartilage Diseases, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Osteoarthritis, Knee
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