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
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
求助PDF
{"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
引用
批量引用
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。