MRI Diagnosis of Meniscus Tears in the Knee: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 15.2 1区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Radiology Pub Date : 2026-04-01 DOI:10.1148/radiol.252288
Jie C Nguyen, Carlos Yaya-Quezada, Wondwossen T Lerebo, Vandan S Patel, Majid Chalian, Dyan V Flores, Tetyana Gorbachova, Kimia K Kani, Megan K Mills, Kathryn J Stevens, Jennifer S Weaver, Robert D Boutin
{"title":"MRI Diagnosis of Meniscus Tears in the Knee: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Jie C Nguyen, Carlos Yaya-Quezada, Wondwossen T Lerebo, Vandan S Patel, Majid Chalian, Dyan V Flores, Tetyana Gorbachova, Kimia K Kani, Megan K Mills, Kathryn J Stevens, Jennifer S Weaver, Robert D Boutin","doi":"10.1148/radiol.252288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Updated benchmarks are needed on the diagnostic performance of MRI for detecting meniscus tears compared with arthroscopy. Purpose To conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic performance of MRI in the detection of tears of the native menisci compared with arthroscopy and with subgroup analyses to identify factors that impact accuracy. Materials and Methods A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases to identify peer-reviewed publications on MRI diagnosis of meniscus tears using knee arthroscopy as the reference standard. Random-effects models, pooled weighted sensitivity and specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were used to determine diagnostic performance, changes according to publication year, and differences based on study design, patient characteristics, imaging parameters, and diagnostic criteria for tears. A meta-regression model was also used. Results Seventy-five studies (published 1986-2023) from 28 countries included 8507 patients (8517 knees). Pooled weighted sensitivity was higher for medial tears (91.0% [95% CI: 89.3, 92.4]) than for lateral tears (78.5% [95% CI: 74.5, 82.0]). In contrast, specificity was higher for lateral tears (94.0% [95% CI: 92.5, 95.3]) than for medial tears (87.7% [95% CI: 85.2, 89.8]). Specificity for diagnosing lateral tears decreased over the years (<i>P</i> = .01). The highest pooled sensitivity for lateral tears was found in studies using both surfacing linear signal intensity and meniscus distortion for diagnosis (81.1%) compared with studies using only signal intensity (79.2%) or not reporting criteria (60.8%) (<i>P</i> = .02); likewise in meta-regression, using both surfacing signal intensity and meniscus distortion was a predictor of higher performance compared with not reporting criteria (adjusted odds ratio, 3.74 [95% CI: 1.37, 10.18]; <i>P</i> = .01). No differences in sensitivity or specificity (<i>P</i> value range, .29-.59) were found between studies using one or more versus two or more images for diagnosing tears in either meniscus. Conclusion The reported accuracy of knee MRI for meniscus tears was consistently high, regardless of individual study designs, with sensitivity higher for the medial meniscus and specificity higher for the lateral meniscus. © RSNA, 2026 <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i></p>","PeriodicalId":20896,"journal":{"name":"Radiology","volume":"319 1","pages":"e252288"},"PeriodicalIF":15.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.252288","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Updated benchmarks are needed on the diagnostic performance of MRI for detecting meniscus tears compared with arthroscopy. Purpose To conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic performance of MRI in the detection of tears of the native menisci compared with arthroscopy and with subgroup analyses to identify factors that impact accuracy. Materials and Methods A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases to identify peer-reviewed publications on MRI diagnosis of meniscus tears using knee arthroscopy as the reference standard. Random-effects models, pooled weighted sensitivity and specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were used to determine diagnostic performance, changes according to publication year, and differences based on study design, patient characteristics, imaging parameters, and diagnostic criteria for tears. A meta-regression model was also used. Results Seventy-five studies (published 1986-2023) from 28 countries included 8507 patients (8517 knees). Pooled weighted sensitivity was higher for medial tears (91.0% [95% CI: 89.3, 92.4]) than for lateral tears (78.5% [95% CI: 74.5, 82.0]). In contrast, specificity was higher for lateral tears (94.0% [95% CI: 92.5, 95.3]) than for medial tears (87.7% [95% CI: 85.2, 89.8]). Specificity for diagnosing lateral tears decreased over the years (P = .01). The highest pooled sensitivity for lateral tears was found in studies using both surfacing linear signal intensity and meniscus distortion for diagnosis (81.1%) compared with studies using only signal intensity (79.2%) or not reporting criteria (60.8%) (P = .02); likewise in meta-regression, using both surfacing signal intensity and meniscus distortion was a predictor of higher performance compared with not reporting criteria (adjusted odds ratio, 3.74 [95% CI: 1.37, 10.18]; P = .01). No differences in sensitivity or specificity (P value range, .29-.59) were found between studies using one or more versus two or more images for diagnosing tears in either meniscus. Conclusion The reported accuracy of knee MRI for meniscus tears was consistently high, regardless of individual study designs, with sensitivity higher for the medial meniscus and specificity higher for the lateral meniscus. © RSNA, 2026 Supplemental material is available for this article.

膝关节半月板撕裂的MRI诊断:最新的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:与关节镜检查相比,MRI检查半月板撕裂的诊断性能需要更新的基准。目的对MRI与关节镜及亚组分析在检测先天性半月板撕裂中的诊断性能进行更新的系统回顾和荟萃分析,以确定影响准确性的因素。材料与方法使用PubMed、Scopus和Embase数据库进行文献检索,寻找以膝关节镜检查为参考标准的半月板撕裂MRI诊断的同行评审出版物。采用随机效应模型、合并加权敏感性和特异性以及综合受试者工作特征曲线分析来确定诊断效果、根据出版年份的变化以及基于研究设计、患者特征、成像参数和泪液诊断标准的差异。还使用了元回归模型。结果来自28个国家的75项研究(发表于1986-2023年),包括8507例患者(8517个膝关节)。内侧撕裂的合并加权敏感性(91.0% [95% CI: 89.3, 92.4])高于外侧撕裂(78.5% [95% CI: 74.5, 82.0])。相反,外侧撕裂的特异性(94.0% [95% CI: 92.5, 95.3])高于内侧撕裂(87.7% [95% CI: 85.2, 89.8])。诊断外侧撕裂的特异性随着时间的推移而下降(P = 0.01)。同时使用表面线性信号强度和半月板变形诊断外侧撕裂的研究(81.1%)与仅使用信号强度(79.2%)或未报告标准的研究(60.8%)相比,综合灵敏度最高(P = .02);同样,在meta回归中,使用表面信号强度和半月板扭曲是与不报告标准相比的更高表现的预测因子(校正优势比为3.74 [95% CI: 1.37, 10.18]; P = 0.01)。在使用一张或多张图像与两张或多张图像诊断半月板撕裂的研究中,没有发现敏感性或特异性的差异(P值范围,0.29 - 0.59)。结论无论个体研究设计如何,报道的膝关节MRI对半月板撕裂的准确性始终很高,内侧半月板的敏感性更高,外侧半月板的特异性更高。©RSNA, 2026本文提供补充材料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Radiology
Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
35.20
自引率
3.00%
发文量
596
审稿时长
3.6 months
期刊介绍: Published regularly since 1923 by the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), Radiology has long been recognized as the authoritative reference for the most current, clinically relevant and highest quality research in the field of radiology. Each month the journal publishes approximately 240 pages of peer-reviewed original research, authoritative reviews, well-balanced commentary on significant articles, and expert opinion on new techniques and technologies. Radiology publishes cutting edge and impactful imaging research articles in radiology and medical imaging in order to help improve human health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书