↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of magnetic resonance studies in the detection of chondral and labral lesions in femoroacetabular impingement: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accuracy of magnetic resonance studies in the detection of chondral and labral lesions in femoroacetabular impingement: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1443-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. M. Saied, C. Redant, M. El-Batouty, M. R. El-Lakkany, W. A. El-Adl, J. Anthonissen, R. Verdonk, E. A. Audenaert

Abstract

Several types of Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are commonly used in imaging of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), however till now there are no clear protocols and recommendations for each type. The aim of this meta-analysis is to detect the accuracy of conventional magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI), direct magnetic resonance arthrography (dMRA) and indirect magnetic resonance arthrography (iMRA) in the diagnosis of chondral and labral lesions in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). A literature search was finalized on the 17th of May 2016 to collect all studies identifying the accuracy of cMRI, dMRA and iMRA in diagnosing chondral and labral lesions associated with FAI using surgical results (arthroscopic or open) as a reference test. Pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals using a random-effects meta-analysis for MRI, dMRA and iMRA were calculated also area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was retrieved whenever possible where AUC is equivocal to diagnostic accuracy. The search yielded 192 publications which were reviewed according inclusion and exclusion criteria then 21 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the qualitative analysis with a total number of 828 cases, lastly 12 studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed that as regard labral lesions the pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC for cMRI were 0.864, 0.833 and 0.88 and for dMRA were 0.91, 0.58 and 0.92. While in chondral lesions the pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC for cMRI were 0.76, 0.72 and 0.75 and for dMRA were 0.75, 0.79 and 0.83, while for iMRA were sensitivity of 0.722 and specificity of 0.917. The present meta-analysis showed that the diagnostic test accuracy was superior for dMRA when compared with cMRI for detection of labral and chondral lesions. The diagnostic test accuracy was superior for labral lesions when compared with chondral lesions in both cMRI and dMRA. Promising results are obtained concerning iMRA but further studies still needed to fully assess its diagnostic accuracy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 45%
Sports and Recreations 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,457,954
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,247
of 4,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,445
of 306,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#26
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,071 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.