4.6 Article

MRI evaluation of meniscal anatomy: which parameters reach the best inter-observer concordance?

期刊

RADIOLOGIA MEDICA
卷 127, 期 9, 页码 991-997

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-022-01527-z

关键词

Observer variation; Magnetic resonance imaging; Meniscus; Knee joint

资金

  1. Universita degli Studi dell'Insubria within the CRUI-CARE Agreement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the inter-individual concordance of MRI parameters in describing meniscal fibrocartilage, finding that signal intensity is the most reliable parameter, while morphology and position may lead to different interpretations.
Purpose The aim of the study is to evaluate which MRI parameters achieve the best degree of inter-individual concordance in the description of meniscal fibrocartilage, regarding its morphology, signal and position. Materials and methods Eighty-nine knee MRIs were included in the study, retrospectively re-evaluated by three radiologists who completed a binary report (normal/abnormal) describing the meniscus signal, position relative to the tibial plateau margin and morphology. The inter-individual concordance value was calculated using Cohen's test. Results We obtained different inter-individual concordance values according to the parameters considered. The concordance was poor in the description of the meniscal position relative to the tibial plateau margin (average k = 0.6); the result was comparable in the description of the meniscal morphology (average k = 0.56). The best results were obtained with the meniscal signal analysis (average k = 0.8). Conclusion To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies in the literature assessing the concordance between multiple readers in the description of the parameters we studied. The results we obtained suggest that the most reliable parameter for describing meniscal fibrocartilage is its signal intensity, whereas morphology and position may lead to different interpretations that are not always unequivocal.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据