↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis of knee injuries: comparison of the physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging with the findings from arthroscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition), November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Diagnosis of knee injuries: comparison of the physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging with the findings from arthroscopy
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition), November 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.rboe.2015.10.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nilton Orlando Júnior, Marcos George de Souza Leão, Nelson Henrique Carvalho de Oliveira

Abstract

To ascertain the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and concordance of the physical examination (PE) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in comparison with arthroscopy, in diagnosing knee injuries. Prospective study on 72 patients, with evaluation and comparison of PE, MRI and arthroscopic findings, to determine the concordance, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. PE showed sensitivity of 75.00%, specificity of 62.50% and accuracy of 69.44% for medial meniscal (MM) lesions, while it showed sensitivity of 47.82%, specificity of 93.87% and accuracy of 79.16% for lateral meniscal (LM) lesions. For anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, PE showed sensitivity of 88.67%, specificity of 94.73% and accuracy of 90.27%. For MM lesions, MRI showed sensitivity of 92.50%, specificity of 62.50% and accuracy of 69.44%, while for LM injuries, it showed sensitivity of 65.00%, specificity of 88.46% and accuracy of 81.94%. For ACL injuries, MRI showed sensitivity of 86.79%, specificity of 73.68% and accuracy of 83.33%. For ACL injuries, the best concordance was with PE, while for MM and LM lesions, it was with MRI (p < 0.001). Meniscal and ligament injuries can be diagnosed through careful physical examination, while requests for MRI are reserved for complex or doubtful cases. PE and MRI used together have high sensitivity for ACL and MM lesions, while for LM lesions the specificity is higher. Level of evidence II - Development of diagnostic criteria on consecutive patients (with universally applied reference "gold" standard).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 14 15%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Other 22 23%
Unknown 21 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 25 26%
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 13 September 2020.
All research outputs
#8,193,826
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,442
of 295,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 295,931 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 67% 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