↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of clinical tests and magnetic resonance imaging for knee meniscal injuries: correlation with video arthroscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition), September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Evaluation of clinical tests and magnetic resonance imaging for knee meniscal injuries: correlation with video arthroscopy
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition), September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.rboe.2016.09.009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonardo Côrtes Antunes, José Marcio Gonçalves de Souza, Nelson Baisi Cerqueira, Cleiton Dahmer, Breno Almeida de Pinho Tavares, Ângelo José Nacif de Faria

Abstract

To determine the specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, likelihood, and correlation of the findings of meniscal tests and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to knee video arthroscopy. A cross-sectional study, conducted between June and December 2015, which evaluated 84 patients with meniscal tears (MT) selected for video arthroscopy. Two orthopedic trainees and a resident performed a physical examination with specific tests. The results and reports from MRI were compared with arthroscopy findings. The data were analyzed in the statistical program R. The Steinmann I test was the most specific, with specificity of 86% and 91% for medial meniscus tears (MMT) and lateral meniscus tears (LMT), respectively. With regard to accuracy, the pain test on palpation of the joint interline (PPJI) showed values of 67% and 73% for detection of MMT and LMT, respectively. The PPJI test showed higher sensitivity, with a 77% chance of detecting MMT. Analysis of the set of three tests (McMurray, PPJI, and Steinmann I) compared to arthroscopy showed 85% sensitivity for MMT and 70% sensitivity for LMT. MRI showed a greater specificity for the diagnosis of MMT and LMT; the values were 82% and 91%, respectively. The combination of the three tests shows better results compared to the isolated tests and thus can be associated to the MRI to make an effective diagnosis. However, further studies assisting in the development of a protocol to standardize diagnostic evaluation are required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 24%
Student > Master 12 22%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,770,423
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)
#62
of 129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,815
of 329,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 129 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 329,012 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them