Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 392

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo MR imaging of hyaline cartilage defects in the knee: comparison with standard MR imaging and arthroscopy.

Disler, D G, McCauley, T R, Kelman, C G, Fuchs, M D, Ratner, L M, Wirth, C R, Hospodar, P P·1996·American Journal of Roentgenology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The sensitivity of fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo (SPGR) images was compared with that of standard MR images for detecting hyaline cartilage defects of the knee, using arthroscopy as the standard of reference. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We assessed 114 consecutive patients for hyaline cartilage defects of the knee with both standard MR imaging sequences and a sagittal fat-suppressed three-dimensional SPGR sequence. Of these patients, 48 with meniscal or ligament injury, or persistent symptoms, underwent subsequent arthroscopy. The standard MR images and SPGR images of these 48 patients were then retrospectively analyzed for articular defects in a blinded fashion by two independent observers. Sensitivity, specificity, and intraobserver and interobserver agreement were determined for the different imaging techniques. RESULTS: One fourth of the patients who went on to arthroscopy were shown to have isolated hyaline cartilage lesions that were clinically confused with meniscal tears and that were missed on the standard MR images. When looking at all surfaces combined for each reader, the SPGR imaging sequence had a significantly higher sensitivity than the standard MR imaging sequences for detecting hyaline cartilage defects (75-85% versus 29-38%, p < .001 for each comparison). When looking at individual surfaces for each reader, significant differences in sensitivity were shown for each surface except the trochlear and lateral tibial surfaces. We found no difference in specificity (97% versus 97%, p > .99). We also found that combined evaluation of standard MR and SPGR images gave no added diagnostic advantage (sensitivity, 86%; specificity, 97%; p > .42). Except for the lateral tibial surface, the study achieved excellent reproducibility among readings and between readers. CONCLUSION: Fat-suppressed three-dimensional SPGR imaging is more sensitive than standard MR imaging for the detection of hyaline cartilage defects of the knee.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2214/ajr.167.1.8659356

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 392

Metadata

Authors
Disler, D. G., McCauley, T. R., Kelman, C. G., Fuchs, M. D., Ratner, L. M., Wirth, C. R., & Hospodar, P. P.
Venue
American Journal of Roentgenology
Published
1996-07
Volume
167
Issue
1
Pages
127-132
ISSN
  • 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 0361-803X
  • 1546-3141
OpenAlex
W1997704181
Cited by
392
References
0
FWCI
10.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo MR imaging of hyaline cartilage defects in the knee: comparison with standard MR imaging and arthroscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.167.1.8659356
The paper
Disler, D. G., McCauley, T. R., Kelman, C. G., Fuchs, M. D., Ratner, L. M., Wirth, C. R., & Hospodar, P. P. (1996). Fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo MR imaging of hyaline cartilage defects in the knee: comparison with standard MR imaging and arthroscopy. American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.167.1.8659356

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.