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.
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.
Authors: Mohamed Jarraya; Frank W Roemer; Martin Englund; Michel D Crema; Heather I Gale; Daichi Hayashi; Jeffrey N Katz; Ali Guermazi Journal: Semin Arthritis Rheum Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: M Recht; V Bobic; D Burstein; D Disler; G Gold; M Gray; J Kramer; P Lang; T McCauley; C Winalski Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 4.176