Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Many imaging techniques have been developed for the detection of rotator cuff tears (RCTs). Despite numerous quantitative diagnostic studies, their relative accuracy remains inconclusive.

Purpose:

To determine which of 3 commonly used imaging modalities is optimal for the diagnosis of RCTs.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Studies evaluating the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA), and ultrasound (US) used in the detection of RCTs were retrieved from the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases. Diagnostic data were extracted from articles that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A network meta-analysis was performed using an arm-based model to pool the absolute sensitivity and specificity, relative sensitivity and specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio as well as the superiority index for ranking the probability of these techniques.

Results:

A total of 144 studies involving 14,059 patients (14,212 shoulders) were included in this network meta-analysis. For the detection of full-thickness (FT) tears, partial-thickness (PT) tears, or any tear, MRA had the highest sensitivity, specificity, and superiority index. For the detection of any tear, MRI had better performance than US (sensitivity: 0.84 vs 0.81, specificity: 0.86 vs 0.82, and superiority index: 0.98 vs 0.22, respectively). With regard to FT tears, MRI had a higher sensitivity and superiority index than US (0.91 vs 0.87 and 0.67 vs 0.28, respectively) and a similar specificity (0.88 vs 0.88, respectively). The results for PT tears were similar to the detection of FT tears. A sensitivity analysis was performed by removing studies involving only 1 arm for FT tears, PT tears, or any tear, and the results remained stable.

Conclusion:

This network meta-analysis of diagnostic tests revealed that high-field MRA had the highest diagnostic value for detecting any tear, followed by low-field MRA, high-field MRI, high-frequency US, low-field MRI, and low-frequency US. These findings can help guide clinicians in deciding on the appropriate imaging modality.

Keywords

rotator cuff tear MRA MRI ultrasound shoulder pain

A rotator cuff tear (RCT) is a common source of shoulder pain and disability. Early diagnosis can help determine the treatment strategy to best prevent further loss of function.^9,14,41 Imaging, along with physical examinations and clinical history, provides vital information for diagnosis⁵⁵ and possible surgical interventions.¹¹⁰ Imaging modalities commonly used for the detection of RCTs include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA), and ultrasound (US).

The finding of a full-thickness (FT) tear is a strong indication for surgical intervention.^95,158 MRA utilizing a contrast agent has high diagnostic accuracy for detecting FT tears, and some authors have even used it as the reference standard when comparing imaging modalities.⁴⁴ However, the combination of patient characteristics, history, and clinical shoulder tests for the diagnosis of FT tears could improve the ability of MRI,¹⁷¹ and a meta-analysis confirmed that 3.0-T MRI appeared equivalent to 3.0-T MRA.⁹⁶

In recent years, technological advances in arthroscopic shoulder surgery have made the surgical management of partial-thickness (PT) tears much less invasive and thereby more cost-effective. Consequently, the identification of a PT tear has become more meaningful.^25,95 The diagnostic accuracy of MRI and MRA for PT tears is similar, and because MRA is an invasive modality, MRI is routinely used as the first-choice imaging option.^25,40,60,141

The initial results of US in the detection of RCTs varied, probably because of low-frequency transducers and limited examiner experience.^11,111,142 However, as US technology continues to advance, the advantages of US, including its low cost and capability for real-time dynamic assessments, become more evident.¹⁸⁹ US is still not as widely used in clinical practice as it could be, both because of its steep learning curve and the uncertainty regarding its diagnostic accuracy.¹⁵ Therefore, a synthesis of the literature is warranted to compare the accuracy of US with MRI and MRA.

Several traditional meta-analyses have been published on the accuracy of medical imaging for the detection of RCTs^{34,80,96,135,149,163}; however, their relative accuracy remains inconclusive, which may be because a traditional meta-analysis allows only for comparisons between 2 diagnostic tests. If multiple modalities are assessed simultaneously, a traditional meta-analysis only compares directly the numerical value of sensitivity and specificity, which, while still informative, is not rigorous or ideal.¹⁷⁷ Recently, Nyaga et al¹¹⁵ developed a Bayesian network meta-analysis using an arm-based model based on the assumption that the missing arms occur at random. This method has been applied in several studies^50,118 because it not only allows analysis of the variability in the accuracy of multiple tests within and between studies simultaneously but also provides more natural variance-covariance matrix structures, making it more appealing than either a traditional meta-analysis or the contrast-based network meta-analysis model introduced by Menten and Lesaffre.⁹⁹

The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of 3 imaging techniques (US, MRI, and MRA) for the diagnosis of RCTs using an arm-based model of a network meta-analysis based on multiple diagnostic tests. The hypothesis was that MRI was equal to US in the diagnosis of RCTs.

Methods

This network meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement (PROSPERO identifier: CRD42018118538) and the PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies) statement.⁹⁷

Search Strategy

A comprehensive literature search of 2 electronic databases, PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase, was performed. An initial search was made using the following keywords: “systematic review” or “meta-analysis” AND “rotator cuff.” The full text of every article listed in the references of each identified systematic review or meta-analysis was procured. A second search was performed using the following keywords: “diagnostic,” “diagnostic imaging,” “diagnostic test,” or “diagnosis” AND “ultrasound,” “ultrasonography,” “US,” “MRI,” “magnetic resonance imaging,” “MRA,” or “magnetic resonance arthrography” AND “rotator cuff,” “supraspinatus,” “infraspinatus,” “subscapularis,” “labrum,” “shoulder joint,” “subacromial impingement,” “tendinopathy,” “shoulder,” “shoulder pain,” “shoulder impingement syndrome,” or “bursitis.” The search was limited to the English language, and the search date was from database inception to August 31, 2018.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria were studies that (1) involved human patients; (2) assessed the diagnostic performance of imaging modalities for RCTs; (3) provided raw data to calculate diagnostic parameters, including the true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative; and (4) included a surgical (open or arthroscopic) reference standard, that is, surgical findings to prove/disprove the imaging findings.

The exclusion criteria were the following: (1) commentaries, letters, case reports, reviews, or congress proceedings; (2) studies involving animal and cadaveric experiments; (3) studies providing insufficient data to calculate diagnostic parameters; and (4) non–English language studies.

Data Extraction

The following information was extracted from each study: the first author’s surname, publication year, country of origin, participant characteristics (number, age, and sex), study design, reference standard (arthroscopic or open surgery), time from MRI/MRA to reference standard, blinding, number of readers, readers’ experience, final diagnoses of included patients, muscle tendon involved, tear site, clinical findings of the shoulder, technical parameters of MRA (administration of contrast agent [intravenous: indirect or intra-articular: direct], vendor, model, magnetic strength, method, sequence, slice thickness, analyzed image plane), technical parameters of MRI (vendor, model, magnetic strength, sequence, slice thickness, analyzed image plane), technical parameters of US (vendor, transducer specifications), and diagnostic data (true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative). If the studies had ≥2 modalities and permitted multiple comparisons, all the information and outcomes of interest were extracted. If ≥2 readers evaluated a diagnostic test in a single study, we calculated the mean average of the diagnostic data.

Risk of Bias

The risk of bias for the included trials was assessed independently by 2 researchers (F.L. and F.X.) utilizing QUADAS-2,¹⁸¹ a quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies. This system is composed of 11 items, and each item is graded as yes, unclear, or no.

Statistical Analysis

The whole process of searching, filtering, data extraction, and quality assessment was implemented by 2 researchers (F.L. and F.X.) independently and repeatedly. For any discrepancy, a consensus was reached by discussion with a third researcher (J.D.).

A Bayesian network meta-analysis using an arm-based model, developed by Nyaga et al,¹¹⁵ was performed by running 3 chains in parallel until there was convergence. Trace plots were used to visually check whether the distributions of the 3 simulated chains mixed properly and were stationary. We used the potential scale reduction factor, the effective number of independent simulation draws, and the Markov chain Monte Carlo error to assess convergence. To assess the relative performance of the reviewed diagnostic tests, the definitions of superior, inferior, equal, and not comparable were drawn. A diagnostic test that is pairwise superior to a relatively large number of other tests and pairwise inferior to a relatively small number of other tests should have a high superiority value and be ranked higher than those tests that do not perform as well. In this study, the superiority index was pooled to quantify rank probabilities of each diagnostic test. All network meta-analyses were performed using R (Version 3.4.3; Comprehensive R Archive Network), package rstan (Version 2.17.3), package loo (Version 2.0.0), and package plyr. Sensitivity analyses for the detection of FT tears, PT tears, and any tear were implemented according to at least 2 arm-based tests. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the different tendons injured, gold standard (arthroscopic or open surgery), study design, QUADAS-2 score, and publication year.

Results

Studies Retrieved and Characteristics

A selection flowchart for the studies chosen is presented in Figure 1. After comprehensive searching of 2 electronic databases, excluding duplicate records, screening remaining titles and abstracts, and identifying related full text, a total of 144 studies involving 14,059 patients (14,212 shoulders) were included in this network meta-analysis. The pooled characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Selection flowchart for studies included in the network meta-analysis. FN, false negative; FP, false positive; TN, true negative; TP, true positive.

TABLE 1

Studies Included in Network Meta-analysis (N = 144) ^a

Variable	n (%)
Publication year
1980-1999	40 (27.8)
2000-2005	31 (21.5)
2006-2010	23 (25.1)
2011-2015	29 (16.0)
2016-2018	21 (14.6)
No. of shoulders
Any tear	109 (75.7)
0-50	34
51-100	40
>100	35
FT tear	87 (60.4)
0-50	30
51-100	30
>100	27
PT tear	87 (60.4)
0-50	25
51-100	35
>100	27
Age range, y	15.9-66.0
Female sex	5996 (56.6)
No. of participants
Any tear	11,032
FT tear	8542
PT tear	8575
No. of patients
Any tear	109 (75.7)
0-50	35
51-100	40
>100	34
FT tear	87 (60.4)
0-50	31
51-100	30
>100	26
PT tear	87 (60.4)
0-50	26
51-100	35
>100	26
Imaging modality
MRA	51 (35.4)
MRI	64 (44.4)
US	65 (45.1)
Radiography	1
Computed tomography	1
2D MRI	1
3D MRI	1
2D MRA	9
3D MRA	8
2D US	1
3D US	2
Direct MRA	31
Indirect MRA	9
3.0-T MRI	13
1.5-T MRI	41
1.0-T MRI	5
0.5-T MRI	4
0.2-T MRI	4
0.18-T MRI	1
3.0-T MRA	15
1.5-T MRA	22
1.0-T MRA	6
0.2-T MRA	15
Any tear/FT tear/PT tear	144/87/87 (100.0/60.4/60.4)
No. of arms
1	107/60/66
2	36/27/21
3	1/0/0
Gold standard
Arthroscopic surgery	75/44/49
Open surgery	35/21/14
Arthroscopic or open surgery	34/22/24
No. of readers
1	16/8/10
2	56/37/36
≥3	21/15/14
Not reported	51/27/27
Reader experience, y
≤10	24/12/14
>10	65/46/46
Not reported	55/29/27
Design
Prospective	42 (29.2)
Retrospective	74 (51.4)
Not reported	27 (18.8)
Prospective and retrospective	1 (0.6)
QUADAS-2 score
7	17 (11.8)
8	18 (12.5)
9	53 (36.8)
10	34 (23.6)
11	22 (15.3)

^a 2D, 2-dimensional; 3D, 3-dimensional; FT, full-thickness; MRA, magnetic resonance arthrography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PT, partial-thickness; US, ultrasound.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Appendix Table A1 presents the detailed QUADAS-2 score results from each included study.

Comparison of MRA, MRI, and US

For the detection of FT tears, PT tears, or any tear, MRA had the highest sensitivity, specificity, and superiority index. For the detection of any tear, MRI had a better diagnostic value than US (sensitivity: 0.84 vs 0.81, specificity: 0.86 vs 0.82, and superiority index: 0.98 vs 0.22, respectively). With regard to FT tears, MRI had a higher sensitivity and superiority index than US (0.91 vs 0.87 and 0.67 vs 0.28, respectively) and a similar specificity (0.88 vs 0.88, respectively). The results for PT tears were similar to the detection of FT tears (Figure 2 and Table 2).

Figure 2.

Network meta-analysis results including sensitivity, specificity, and superiority index values of imaging methods for the detection of rotator cuff tears. FT, full-thickness tear; MRA, magnetic resonance arthrography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PT, partial-thickness tear; US, ultrasound.

TABLE 2

Comparison of MRA, MRI, and US ^a

Tests	Absolute Sensitivity	Absolute Specificity	Diagnostic Odds Ratio [Rank]	Superiority Index [Rank]	Relative Sensitivity	Relative Specificity	Data Sets, n	Studies, n
Any tear
MRA	0.89(0.85-0.91)	0.91(0.88-0.93)	79.72(49.55-121.35)[1]	4.92(3.00-5.00)[1]	1.00(1.00-1.00)	1.00(1.00-1.00)	60	50
MRI	0.84(0.82-0.87)	0.86(0.83-0.88)	32.65(23.99-43.54)[2]	0.98(0.33-3.00)[2]	0.95(0.91-1.00)	0.94(0.90-0.99)	87	69
US	0.81(0.78-0.85)	0.82(0.78-0.85)	20.14(14.04-27.79)[3]	0.22(0.20-0.33)[3]	0.92(0.87-0.98)	0.90(0.85-0.95)	76	66
FT tear
MRA	0.95(0.93-0.97)	0.96(0.92-0.98)	548.55 (198.58-1177.55)[1]	4.96(4.50-5.00)[1]	1.00(1.00-1.00)	1.00(1.00-1.00)	31	30
MRI	0.91(0.88-0.94)	0.88(0.84-0.92)	85.49(49.85-133.95)[2]	0.67(0.33-1.00)[2]	0.96(0.92-0.99)	0.92(0.88-0.97)	45	45
US	0.87(0.82-0.90)	0.88(0.84-0.92)	52.71(30.34-83.37)[3]	0.28(0.20-0.33)[3]	0.91(0.86-0.95)	0.93(0.88-0.97)	41	41
PT tear
MRA	0.81(0.74-0.86)	0.90(0.86-0.93)	40.79(21.33-69.11)[1]	4.79(3.00-5.00)[1]	1.00(1.00-1.00)	1.00(1.00-1.00)	31	28
MRI	0.67(0.60-0.73)	0.86(0.81-0.89)	12.68(7.95-19.11)[2]	0.74(0.20-3.00)[2]	0.83(0.74-0.93)	0.95(0.89-1.01)	43	41
US	0.62(0.53-0.71)	0.85(0.80-0.89)	9.91(5.79-15.74)[3]	0.35(0.20-1.00)[3]	0.77(0.65-0.89)	0.95(0.89-1.01)	39	39

^a Data are reported as mean (95% CI) unless otherwise indicated. FT, full-thickness; MRA, magnetic resonance arthrography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PT, partial-thickness; US, ultrasound.

High- or Low-field MRA, High- or Low-field MRI, and High- or Low-frequency US

For the detection of FT tears, the diagnostic value rank (from high to low) of these 6 imaging modalities was 3.0-T MRA, 1.5-T MRA, 3.0-T MRI, ≥7.5-MHz US, 1.5-T MRI, and <7.5-MHz US (superiority index: 8.66 vs 4.73 vs 2.21 vs 0.88 vs 0.64 vs 0.14, respectively). For the detection of PT tears, the diagnostic value rank (from high to low) was 3.0-T MRA, 3.0-T MRI, 1.5-T MRA, ≥7.5-MHz US, 1.5-T MRI, and <7.5-MHz US (superiority index: 8.15 vs 5.25 vs 2.44 vs 0.95 vs 0.35 vs 0.18, respectively). For the detection of any tear, the diagnostic value rank (from high to low) was 3.0-T MRA, 1.5-T MRA, 3.0-T MRI, ≥7.5-MHz US, 1.5-T MRI, and <7.5-MHz US (superiority index: 5.85 vs 5.36 vs 2.71 vs 1.39 vs 0.83 vs 0.16, respectively) (Figure 3 and Table 3). A sensitivity analysis was performed by removing studies involving only 1 arm for FT tears, PT tears, or any tear, and the results remained stable.

Figure 3.

Network meta-analysis results including sensitivity, specificity, and superiority index values of high- or low-field MRA, high- or low-field MRI, and high- or low-frequency US for the detection of rotator cuff tears. FT, full-thickness tear; MRA, magnetic resonance arthrography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PT, partial-thickness tear; US, ultrasound.

TABLE 3

Comparison of High- or Low-field MRA, High- or Low-field MRI, and High- or Low-frequency US ^a

Test	Absolute Sensitivity	Absolute Specificity	Diagnostic Odds Ratio [Rank]	Superiority Index [Rank]	Relative Sensitivity	Relative Specificity	Data Sets, n	Studies, n
Any tear
3.0-T MRA	0.87(0.80-0.92)	0.88(0.82-0.93)	59.59(25.44-115.74)[2]	5.85(0.60-11.00)[1]	1.10(0.95-1.38)	0.99(0.88-1.20)	20	13
1.5-T MRA	0.85(0.76-0.92)	0.90(0.81-0.95)	62.97(20.80-144.99)[1]	5.36(0.33-11.00)[2]	1.08(0.91-1.36)	1.00(0.87-1.22)	15	14
3.0-T MRI	0.80(0.64-0.90)	0.90(0.74-0.97)	53.09(9.75-164.12)[3]	2.71(0.14-11.00)[3]	1.00(1.00-1.00)	1.00(1.00-1.00)	12	8
1.5-T MRI	0.84(0.79-0.88)	0.81(0.74-0.87)	22.76(12.89-36.73)[5]	0.83(0.11-5.00)[5]	1.06(0.91-1.31)	0.91(0.79-1.10)	46	37
≥7.5-MHz US	0.85(0.80-0.89)	0.81(0.75-0.86)	26.44(14.68-43.23)[4]	1.39(0.14-5.00)[4]	1.08(0.93-1.34)	0.91(0.81-1.10)	42	39
<7.5-MHz US	0.76(0.57-0.89)	0.61(0.37-0.81)	6.87(1.45-19.87)[6]	0.16(0.09-1.00)[6]	0.97(0.70-1.26)	0.69(0.41-0.94)	7	6
FT tear
3.0-T MRA	0.95(0.88-0.98)	0.97(0.89-0.99)	1149.53(129.82-3909.11)[1]	8.66(1.67-11.00)[1]	1.08(0.95-1.47)	1.11(0.97-1.54)	15	13
1.5-T MRA	0.94(0.83-0.99)	0.92(0.77-0.98)	396.26(38.23-1538.93)[2]	4.73(0.33-11.00)[2]	1.07(0.89-1.48)	1.06(0.84-1.47)	10	10
3.0-T MRI	0.89(0.64-0.98)	0.88(0.63-0.98)	194.45(8.52-889.32)[3]	2.21(0.11-9.00)[3]	1.00(1.00-1.00)	1.00(1.00-1.00)	5	5
1.5-T MRI	0.89(0.83-0.94)	0.85(0.78-0.91)	57.06(23.40-114.52)[5]	0.64(0.11-1.67)[5]	1.01(0.88-1.40)	0.99(0.83-1.36)	28	25
≥7.5-MHz US	0.89(0.82-0.94)	0.88(0.80-0.93)	72.46(27.12-154.88)[4]	0.88(0.14-2.33)[4]	1.01(0.88-1.40)	1.01(0.86-1.40)	22	22
<7.5-MHz US	0.76(0.44-0.93)	0.70(0.34-0.90)	14.75(1.17-59.51)[6]	0.14(0.09-0.43)[6]	0.86(0.48-1.26)	0.81(0.37-1.22)	3	3
PT tear
3.0-T MRA	0.83(0.71-0.90)	0.93(0.86-0.97)	80.10(24.19-186.85)[2]	8.15(2.33-11.00)[1]	1.09(0.87-1.48)	1.06(0.91-1.66)	15	12
1.5-T MRA	0.77(0.65-0.86)	0.86(0.76-0.92)	24.75(8.52-54.77)[3]	2.44(0.20-9.00)[3]	1.02(0.78-1.44)	0.99(0.80-1.54)	14	14
3.0-T MRI	0.77(0.56-0.91)	0.89(0.57-1.00)	141.02(3.72-866.40)[1]	5.25(0.20-11.00)[2]	1.00(1.00-1.00)	1.00(1.00-1.00)	5	3
1.5-T MRI	0.64(0.54-0.73)	0.80(0.71-0.87)	7.85(3.91-13.92)[5]	0.35(0.11-1.00)[5]	0.85(0.66-1.19)	0.92(0.75-1.42)	25	25
≥7.5-MHz US	0.66(0.54-0.76)	0.87(0.80-0.92)	14.17(6.26-27.31)[4]	0.95(0.14-3.00)[4]	0.87(0.66-1.22)	1.00(0.83-1.54)	21	21
<7.5-MHz US	0.49(0.23-0.76)	0.73(0.41-0.91)	4.32(0.48-15.93)[6]	0.18(0.09-1.00)[6]	0.66(0.29-1.09)	0.84(0.45-1.36)	3	3

^a Data are reported as mean (range) unless otherwise indicated. FT, full-thickness; MRA, magnetic resonance arthrography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PT, partial-thickness; US, ultrasound.

Effect of Publication Year on US Accuracy

The stated diagnostic accuracy of US in articles published between 2016 and 2018 was higher than that in articles published between 2011 and 2015 for FT tears (sensitivity: 0.72 vs 0.77, specificity: 0.85 vs 0.75, and superiority index: 1.49 vs 1.10, respectively), PT tears (sensitivity: 0.60 vs 0.61, specificity: 0.82 vs 0.72, and superiority index: 1.72 vs 0.95, respectively), or any tear (sensitivity: 0.71 vs 0.80, specificity: 0.77 vs 0.67, and superiority index: 1.29 vs 1.19, respectively).

Other Subgroup Analyses

In other analyses, 3-dimensional MRA appeared equivalent to 2-dimensional MRA in the diagnosis of any tear (sensitivity: 0.88 vs 0.87, specificity: 0.89 vs 0.88, and superiority index: 1.86 vs 0.89, respectively), although there was a trend toward greater accuracy in the diagnosis of FT tears. Meanwhile, the accuracy of direct MRA in the diagnosis of any tear was higher than that of indirect MRA (sensitivity: 0.88 vs 0.86, specificity: 0.93 vs 0.86, and superiority index: 2.18 vs 0.63, respectively).

Other subgroup analyses for FT tears, PT tears, and any tear based on the different muscles involved (supraspinatus, subscapularis, infraspinatus, supraspinatus-subscapularis, supraspinatus-infraspinatus, and subscapularis-infraspinatus) (Appendix Table A2), study design (prospective or retrospective) (Appendix Table A3), QUADAS-2 score (7, 8, 9, 10, or 11) (Appendix Table A4), publication year (2000-2019) (Appendix Table A5), and gold standard (arthroscopic surgery) (Appendix Table A6) suggested a similar direction and magnitude of effect for studies investigating the diagnostic value.

Discussion

An RCT is one of the most common causes of shoulder pain and disability.^18,55 Yamamoto et al¹⁸⁶ found that 20.7% of 1366 shoulders had FT RCTs in a Japanese mountain village population. Whether to proceed to arthroscopic or open surgery for RCTs depends not only on clinical findings but also on imaging results; additionally, findings during surgery are largely affected by the availability of imaging reports.¹⁷⁸ The diagnostic accuracy and effective use of imaging technology are major concerns for clinicians and patients. Therefore, it is essential to compare the accuracy of MRA, MRI, and US in the diagnosis of RCTs and analyze their advantages and disadvantages under various conditions.

It has long been debated whether to inject contrast agents when using MRI for the detection of RCTs. With regard to lesions of the glenoid labrum and labral capsular ligamentous complex, MRA is thought to be the most accurate.^{7,19,71,94,125,144} The anatomic resolution is good, subtle defects can be depicted by contrast material, and leakage of contrast agents is usually evident, thus enhancing the diagnostic accuracy of FT tears.^26,60,68,120 We found that MRA was also the most accurate method for detecting RCTs regardless of type (FT or PT tear). However, the injection of a contrast agent is an invasive procedure, infections and adverse reactions occur,⁴⁴ and the examination time is longer.⁵³ The accuracy of MRA is affected by the classification and basic properties of the contrast agent; as a result, the sensitivity and specificity were improved only by 3% to 4% when compared with plain MRI.²⁷ False positive results due to the inflamed tendon showing high intensity,^5,53 leakage through the postoperative incompletely healed tendon,³⁰ and false negative results due to the failure of contrast to pass into the bursa can lower the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MRA.^25,88 Moreover, in clinical practice, doctors and radiologists make the diagnosis based on a combination of medical history, physical examination, and imaging findings, unlike in a research project, during which the investigator is deliberately blinded to the clinical findings. The differences in specificity and sensitivity between MRA and MRI are quite small, and that may be a good reason to avoid the potential risk/cost of MRA, especially if one suspects an FT tear.

A PT tear is a source of surgically treatable shoulder pain, and it may deteriorate into an FT tear; therefore, the identification and surgical repair of PT tears have recently gained attention.²⁵ Our meta-analysis shows that MRI had a similar sensitivity to MRA in the diagnosis of bursal-side PT tears (0.73 vs 0.75, respectively). It seems not all that beneficial to inject contrast agents when using MRI for the detection of RCTs. However, technological innovations, such as using fat-suppression sequences to distinguish fat from contrast agents¹⁶⁹ and using intravascular injections to achieve delineation of the bursal-side PT tears,^57,168 make MRA still valuable under specific circumstances in which US and MRI are not definitive.^34,154

MRI and US are currently regarded as the modalities of choice for the noninvasive diagnosis of rotator cuff lesions.^{6,12,60,114,132,161} MRI excels in localizing and defining the extent of the RCT, which is critical for diagnosis and for guiding treatment decisions.^137,162 US provides a dynamic assessment of the shoulder, but it is sometimes impossible to achieve full visualization of the entire rotator cuff in patients with restricted range of motion,¹³⁰ which may reduce its accuracy. MRI has been shown to be a reproducible method, with low observer variability,^6,138 as opposed to US, which is considered the most operator-dependent imaging technique in the detection of shoulder disease.^95,101 Another barrier to the widespread use of US is the steep learning curve.^101,112,136 Murphy et al¹¹⁰ reported that 300 scans are required under the supervision of an experienced musculoskeletal ultrasonographer to become adept, which is not feasible for most clinicians. On the positive side, US allows patient-clinician interactions and real-time feedback^101,112 and provides opportunities for patients to point out symptomatic areas.¹¹¹ There are no contraindications and no artifacts from metal implants, making it the first choice in patients with pacemakers and in postoperative evaluations.^30,85,129

Low cost has always been an advantage of US. Roy et al¹³⁵ recommended US as the best option for the detection of FT tears, when considering economic benefits and safety, even though MRI is more accurate. In 2014, Voigt et al¹⁷⁵ reported that false positive and false negative MRI findings in the diagnosis of RCTs resulted in an unnecessary cost of $210 million in the United States. However, Gyftopoulos et al,⁵⁵ focusing on the detection of FT tears, performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and found MRI to be the preferred imaging strategy rather than US. While taking all types of musculoskeletal disorders into consideration, Bureau and Ziegler¹⁵ recommended US as the primary tool to detect RCTs because of its comparable accuracy and high cost-efficiency compared with MRI.

Since the normal rotator cuff anatomy on US was first described by Middleton et al¹⁰⁰ in 1984, the technical limitations of US have always been an issue. Nowadays, technical advancements, such as the linear array broad-bandwidth transducers,^66,162 and the establishment of a standardized imaging protocol²⁹ have increased the accuracy and reliability of US. Our subgroup analysis based on the publication year found that the newer machines did provide better diagnoses of RCTs. Similarly, the technological innovations in MRI have improved its diagnostic ability. Additionally, the higher accuracy based on MRI and US may be related to the improved ability to diagnose RCTs intraoperatively. Our subgroup analyses based on MRI and US parameters demonstrated that ≥7.5-MHz US is superior to 1.5-T MRI in the detection of FT tears, PT tears, or any tear, although it is inferior to 3.0-T MRI. The differences in specificity and sensitivity between MRI and high-frequency US were quite small, and that may be a good reason to avoid the potential cost of MRI. However, in making final decisions, the available equipment (parameters of MRI and US) and examiner experience should also be taken into consideration.

We acknowledge several limitations in this network meta-analysis. We assessed the diagnostic value of the imaging modalities alone. The roles of patient history and physical examination results were not evaluated. Real-life situations, such as MRI with physical tests and US with physical tests, were not analyzed side by side. Several subgroup analyses, such as specific tendon-based analyses, were implemented based on insufficient data, which makes the results open to question. Insufficient data also made it impossible to conduct several subgroup analyses, including the diagnostic value of 3 imaging modalities for different types of partial tears, such as superficial tears, partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion lesions, or interstitial tears. Unfortunately, many other imaging diagnostic measures could not be included in our analysis because of the limited number of studies; these included arthro–computed tomography, which is considered by some surgeons to be the gold standard for diagnosing FT RCTs, and standard radiography, which is regarded as the first choice for the diagnosis of shoulder pain. Additionally, the diagnostic ability of these imaging modalities in evaluating rotator cuff repair postoperatively was not studied. Future advances in MRI and US technology will likely render the conclusions of older studies, and their derivative meta-analyses, out of date. Most surgeons are already using MRI to confirm the presence of RCTs, so this article will not change clinical practice, but it does provide statistical evidence to support the practice.

Conclusion

Footnotes

Final revision submitted September 18, 2019; accepted October 10, 2019.

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: This study was supported by the China Scholarship Council, which funded 2 of the authors (F.L.: No. 201808080126; F.X.: No. 201706920036), and the National Key R&D Program of Shandong Province (J.D.: No. 2016GSF201214). AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Appendix

TABLE A6

Subgroup Analysis Based on Gold Standard (Arthroscopic Surgery) ^a

Test	Absolute Sensitivity	Absolute Specificity	Diagnostic Odds Ratio [Rank]	Superiority Index [Rank]	Relative Sensitivity	Relative Specificity	Data Sets, n	Studies, n
PT tear
3.0-T MRI	0.84(0.68-0.93)	0.88(0.68-0.97)	73.13(8.78-275.67)[2]	3.02(0.20-7.00)[2]	1.00(1.00-1.00)	1.00(1.00-1.00)	10	8
1.5-T MRI	0.82(0.71-0.89)	0.78(0.68-0.86)	18.41(7.41-37.57)[3]	0.68(0.14-3.00)[3]	0.98(0.81-1.22)	0.90(0.74-1.18)	17	15
≥7.5-MHz US	0.92(0.85-0.95)	0.86(0.77-0.92)	82.87(30.68-173.75)[1]	4.84(1.00-7.00)[1]	1.10(0.96-1.36)	0.99(0.84-1.29)	13	13
<7.5-MHz US	0.63(0.17-0.94)	0.62(0.19-0.95)	14.26(0.17-82.28)[4]	0.43(0.14-3.00)[4]	0.75(0.20-1.21)	0.71(0.22-1.17)	1	1
PT tear
3.0-T MRI	0.87(0.59-0.98)	0.89(0.61-0.98)	194.03(6.27-1017.47)[1]	3.26(0.20-7.00)[2]	1.00(1.00-1.00)	1.00(1.00-1.00)	5	5
1.5-T MRI	0.78(0.56-0.92)	0.81(0.65-0.90)	20.98(3.99-58.70)[4]	0.53(0.14-3.00)[4]	0.91(0.62-1.34)	0.92(0.71-1.34)	9	9
≥7.5-MHz US	0.92(0.72-0.99)	0.88(0.76-0.94)	182.00(16.49-666.15)[2]	3.58(0.33-7.00)[1]	1.07(0.81-1.54)	1.01(0.82-1.46)	7	7
<7.5-MHz US	0.74(0.25-0.99)	0.73(0.24-0.98)	136.19(0.47-821.28)[3]	1.08(0.14-7.00)[3]	0.87(0.28-1.45)	0.84(0.27-1.32)	1	1
PT tear
3.0-T MRI	0.79(0.58-0.91)	0.85(0.51-1.00)	146.65(3.13-1052.81)[1]	3.70(0.20-7.00)[1]	1.00(1.00-1.00)	1.00(1.00-1.00)	5	5
1.5-T MRI	0.70(0.55-0.81)	0.77(0.62-0.89)	9.27(3.13-19.97)[4]	0.72(0.14-3.00)[3]	0.91(0.67-1.26)	0.93(0.67-1.51)	12	12
≥7.5-MHz US	0.76(0.57-0.89)	0.91(0.78-0.96)	44.61(9.60-110.65)[2]	3.64(0.33-7.00)[2]	0.98(0.71-1.35)	1.10(0.85-1.77)	7	7
<7.5-MHz US	0.46(0.08-0.87)	0.70(0.21-0.97)	11.00(0.09-69.49)[3]	0.54(0.14-3.00)[4]	0.59(0.10-1.18)	0.86(0.23-1.63)	1	1

^a Data are reported as mean (95% CI) unless otherwise indicated. FT, full-thickness; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PT, partial-thickness; US, ultrasound.

References

Adams CR, Schoolfield JD, Burkhart SS. Accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting a subscapularis tendon tear based on arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(11):1427–1433.

Al-Shawi

Badge

Bunker

. The detection of full thickness rotator cuff tears using ultrasound. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:889–892.

Alasaarela

Leppilahti

Hakala

. Ultrasound and operative evaluation of arthritic shoulder joints. Ann Rheum Dis. 1998;57(6):357–360.

Arend

da Silva

. Diagnostic value of tendon thickness and structure in the sonographic diagnosis of supraspinatus tendinopathy: room for a two-step approach. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(6):975–979.

Bachmann

Melzer

Heinrichs

Mohring

Rominger

. Diagnosis of rotator cuff lesions: comparison of US and MRI on 38 joint specimens. Eur Radiol. 1997;7(2):192–197.

Balich

Sheley

Brown

Sauser

Quinn

. MR imaging of the rotator cuff tendon: interobserver agreement and analysis of interpretive errors. Radiology. 1997;204(1):191–194.

Beltran

Rosenberg

Chandnani

Cuomo

Beltran

Rokito

. Glenohumeral instability: evaluation with MR arthrography. Radiographics. 1997;17(3):657–673.

Bhatnagar

Bhonsle

Mehta

. Correlation between MRI and arthroscopy in diagnosis of shoulder pathology. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(2):RC18–RC21.

Bianchi

Martinoli

Abdelwahab

. Ultrasound of tendon tears, part 1: general considerations and upper extremity. Skeletal Radiol. 2005;34(9):500–512.

10.

Binkert

Zanetti

Gerber

Hodler

. MR arthrography of the glenohumeral joint: two concentrations of gadoteridol versus Ringer solution as the intraarticular contrast material. Radiology. 2001;220:219–224.

11.

Brandt

Cardone

Grant

Post

Weiss

. Rotator cuff sonography: a reassessment. Radiology. 1989;173(2):323–327.

12.

Brenneke

Morgan

. Evaluation of ultrasonography as a diagnostic technique in the assessment of rotator cuff tendon tears. Am J Sports Med. 1992;20:287–289.

13.

Bretzke

Crass

Craig

Feinberg

. Ultrasonography of the rotator cuff: normal and pathologic anatomy. Invest Radiol. 1985;20(3):311–315.

14.

Bryant

Shnier

Bryant

Murrell

. A comparison of clinical estimation, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and arthroscopy in determining the size of rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(3):219–224.

15.

Bureau

Ziegler

. Economics of musculoskeletal ultrasound. Curr Radiol Rep. 2016;4(8):44.

16.

Burk

Jr Karasick

Kurtz

, et al. Rotator cuff tears: prospective comparison of MR imaging with arthrography, sonography, and surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989;153(1):87–92.

17.

Burk

Jr Torres

Marone

Mitchell

Rifkin

Karasick

. MR imaging of shoulder injuries in professional baseball players. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1991;1(3):385–389.

18.

Carbone

Napoli

Gumina

. MRI of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder: distension of the bursa in the superior subscapularis recess is a suggestive sign of the pathology. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(2):345–348.

19.

Chandnani

Gagliardi

Murnane

, et al. Glenohumeral ligaments and shoulder capsular mechanism: evaluation with MR arthrography. Radiology. 1995;196(1):27–32.

20.

Chang

Wang

Chiou

Sun

. Comparison of shoulder ultrasound and MR imaging in diagnosing full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Clin Imaging. 2002;26(1):50–54.

21.

Chang

Lee

. Computer-aided diagnosis of different rotator cuff lesions using shoulder musculoskeletal ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016;42(9):2315–2322.

22.

Chen

Haw-Chang

Lai

Chen

. Diagnostic utility of US for detecting rotator cuff tears in rheumatoid arthritis patients: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. J Med Ultrasound. 2014;22(4):200–206.

23.

Choo

Lee

Kim

, et al. Delaminated tears of the rotator cuff: prevalence, characteristics, and diagnostic accuracy using indirect MR arthrography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(2):360–366.

24.

Choo

Lee

Kim

Seo

Kim

. Comparison of three-dimensional isotropic T1-weighted fast spin-echo MR arthrography with two-dimensional MR arthrography of the shoulder. Radiology. 2012;262(3):921–931.

25.

Chun

Kim

. Comparisons of the various partial-thickness rotator cuff tears on MR arthrography and arthroscopic correlation. Korean J Radiol. 2010;11:528–535.

26.

Chung

Dwek

Feng

Resnick

. MR arthrography of the glenohumeral joint: a tailored approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):217–219.

27.

Bhalla

Rowan

Aippersbach

Bicknell

. Comparison of 2- and 3-dimensional shoulder ultrasound to magnetic resonance imaging in a community hospital for the detection of supraspinatus rotator cuff tears with improved worktime room efficiency. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2012;63(3):170–176.

28.

Cole

Twibill

Lam

Hackett

Murrell

. Not all ultrasounds are created equal: general sonography versus musculoskeletal sonography in the detection of rotator cuff tears. Shoulder Elbow. 2016;8(4):250–257.

29.

Corazza

Orlandi

Fabbro

, et al. Dynamic high-resolution ultrasound of the shoulder: how we do it. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(2):266–277.

30.

Crass

Craig

Feinberg

. Sonography of the postoperative rotator cuff. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986;146(3):561–564.

31.

Crass

Craig

Feinberg

. Ultrasonography of rotator cuff tears: a review of 500 diagnostic studies. J Clin Ultrasound. 1988;16(5):313–327.

32.

Cullen

Breidahl

Janes

. Diagnostic accuracy of shoulder ultrasound performed by a single operator. Australas Radiol. 2007;51(3):226–229.

33.

Day

Phil

McCormack

Nayyar

Jazrawi

. Physician training ultrasound and accuracy of diagnosis in rotator cuff tears. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2016;74(3):207–211.

34.

de Jesus

Parker

Frangos

Nazarian

. Accuracy of MRI, MR arthrography, and ultrasound in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(6):1701–1707.

35.

Edmonds

Eisner

Kruk

Roocroft

Dwek

. Diagnostic shortcomings of magnetic resonance arthrography to evaluate partial rotator cuff tears in adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop. 2015;35(4):407–411.

36.

Elmorsy

Keightley

Flannery

. Accuracy of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detection of rotator cuff tears in district general hospital. Pol J Radiol. 2017;82:634–637.

37.

Etancelin-Jamet

Bouilleau

Martin

Bertrand

. Diagnostic value of angled oblique sagittal images of the supraspinatus tendon for the detection of rotator cuff tears on MR imaging. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017;98(2):161–169.

38.

Farin

Jaroma

. Sonographic detection of tears of the anterior portion of the rotator cuff (subscapularis tendon tears). J Ultrasound Med. 1996;15(3):221–225.

39.

Farshad-Amacker

Buck

Farshad

Pfirrmann

Gerber

. Partial supraspinatus tears are associated with tendon lengthening. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(2):408–414.

40.

Ferrari

Governi

Burresi

Vigni

Stefani

. Supraspinatus tendon tears: comparison of US and MR arthrography with surgical correlation. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(5):1211–1217.

41.

Ferri

Finlay

Popowich

Stamp

Schuringa

Friedman

. Sonography of full-thickness supraspinatus tears: comparison of patient positioning technique with surgical correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(1):180–184.

42.

Fitzgerald

Lawler

Lowe

Nelson

Mantell

Jawa

. Computed tomography underestimates rotator cuff pathology in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(8):1451–1455.

43.

Foti

Avanzi

Mantovani

, et al. MR arthrography of the shoulder: evaluation of isotropic 3D intermediate-weighted FSE and hybrid GRE T1-weighted sequences. Radiol Med. 2017;122(5):353–360.

44.

Fotiadou

Vlychou

Papadopoulos

Karataglis

Palladas

Fezoulidis

. Ultrasonography of symptomatic rotator cuff tears compared with MR imaging and surgery. Eur J Radiol. 2008;68(1):174–179.

45.

Frei

Chladek

Trc

Kopecny

Kautzner

. Arthroscopic evaluation of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of rotator cuff tear. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2008;10(2):111–114.

46.

Friedman

Hidalgo

Gilmer

Mallon

. Ultrasonography of the rotator cuff: analysis of results in a community setting. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993;2(1):22–26.

47.

Fritz

Ouellette

O’Hanley

Kassarjian

Palmer

. Cystic changes at supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendon insertion sites: association with age and rotator cuff disorders in 238 patients. Radiology. 2007;244:239–248.

48.

Furukawa

Morihara

Arai

, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for subscapularis tendon tears using radial-slice magnetic resonance images. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(11):e283–e290.

49.

Gaenslen

Satterlee

Hinson

. Magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of failed repairs of the rotator cuff: relationship to operative findings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(9):1391–1396.

50.

Pan

Song

, et al. Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of five common tumour biomarkers and CA19-9 for pancreatic cancer: a protocol for a network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. BMJ Open. 2017;7(12):e018175.

51.

Gilat

Atoun

Cohen

, et al.

Recurrent rotator cuff tear: is ultrasound imaging reliable?

J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(7):1263–1267.

52.

Gormeli

Yucesoy

Ataoglu

Kanatli

. Comparison of the results of ultrasonographic evaluation and arthroscopy in patients scheduled for surgery of the supraspinatus tendon rupture. Ann Saudi Med. 2014;34(6):522–526.

53.

Grainger

Elliott

Campbell

Tirman

Steinbach

Genant

. Direct MR arthrography: a review of current use. Clin Radiol. 2000;55(3):163–176.

54.

Guo

Wang

Liu

. Ultrasound in assessment of supraspinatus tendon injury: correlation with arthroscopy. Chin Med J (Engl). 2016;129(3):361–363.

55.

Gyftopoulos

Guja

Subhas

Virk

Gold

. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasound for the detection of symptomatic full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(12):2067–2077.

56.

Gyftopoulos

O’Donnell

Shah

Goss

Babb

Recht

. Correlation of MRI with arthroscopy for the evaluation of the subscapularis tendon: a musculoskeletal division’s experience. Skeletal Radiol. 2013;42(9):1269–1275.

57.

Herold

Bachthaler

Hamer

, et al. Indirect MR arthrography of the shoulder: use of abduction and external rotation to detect full- and partial-thickness tears of the supraspinatus tendon. Radiology. 2006;240:152–160.

58.

Hitachi

Takase

Tanaka

, et al. High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of rotator cuff tears using a microscopy coil: noninvasive detection without intraarticular contrast material. Jpn J Radiol. 2011;29(7):466–474.

59.

Hodler

Fretz

Terrier

Gerber

. Rotator cuff tears: correlation of sonographic and surgical findings. Radiology. 1988;169(3):791–794.

60.

Hodler

Kursunoglu-Brahme

Snyder

, et al. Rotator cuff disease: assessment with MR arthrography versus standard MR imaging in 36 patients with arthroscopic confirmation. Radiology. 1992;182(2):431–436.

61.

Horiuchi

Nozaki

Tasaki

, et al. Comparison between isotropic 3-dimensional fat-suppressed T2-weighted fast spin echo (FSE) and conventional 2-dimensional fat-suppressed proton-weighted FSE shoulder magnetic resonance imaging at 3-T in patients with shoulder pain. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2018;42(4):559–565.

62.

Hussain

Muzzammil

Butt

Valsamis

Dwyer

. Effectiveness of plain shoulder radiograph in detecting degenerate rotator cuff tears. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2018;30(1):8–11.

63.

Iannotti

Ciccone

Buss

, et al. Accuracy of office-based ultrasonography of the shoulder for the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(6):1305–1311.

64.

Iannotti

Zlatkin

Esterhai

Kressel

Dalinka

Spindler

. Magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(1):17–29.

65.

Ilozue

Fotiadou

Amarah

. Evaluating the success of preoperative imaging for diagnosing rotator cuff tears in a regional centre. Acta Orthop Belg. 2014;80(3):322–330.

66.

Jacobson

Lancaster

Prasad

van Holsbeeck

Craig

Kolowich

. Full-thickness and partial-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears: value of US signs in diagnosis. Radiology. 2004;230(1):234–242.

67.

Jordan

Naeem

Srinivas

Shyamalan

. A comparison of magnetic resonance arthrography and arthroscopic findings in the assessment of anterior shoulder dislocations. Skeletal Radiol. 2015;44(5):653–657.

68.

Jung

Jee

Chun

Kim

. Diagnostic performance of MR arthrography with anterior trans-subscapularis versus posterior injection approach for subscapularis tendon tears at 3.0 T. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(3):1303–1311.

69.

Jung

Jee

Chun

Ahn

Kim

. Magnetic resonance arthrography including ABER view in diagnosing partial-thickness tears of the rotator cuff: accuracy, and inter- and intra-observer agreements. Acta Radiol. 2010;51(2):194–201.

70.

Jung

Jee

Park

Lee

Kim

. Supraspinatus tendon tears at 3.0 T shoulder MR arthrography: diagnosis with 3D isotropic turbo spin-echo SPACE sequence versus 2D conventional sequences. Skeletal Radiol. 2012;41:1401–1410.

71.

Jung

Yoon

Choi

S-H

Kwon

Yoo

Choe

B-KJR

. Three-dimensional isotropic shoulder MR arthrography: comparison with two-dimensional MR arthrography for the diagnosis of labral lesions at 3.0 T. Radiology. 2009;250(2):498–505.

72.

Jung

Yoon

Yoo

Choe

. Comparison study of indirect MR arthrography and direct MR arthrography of the shoulder. Skeletal Radiol. 2009;38(7):659–667.

73.

Kang

Kim

, et al. Supraspinatus tendon tears: comparison of 3D US and MR arthrography with surgical correlation. Skeletal Radiol. 2009;38(11):1063–1069.

74.

Kluger

Mayrhofer

Kroner

, et al. Sonographic versus magnetic resonance arthrographic evaluation of full-thickness rotator cuff tears in millimeters. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(2):110–116.

75.

Kurol

Rahme

Hilding

. Sonography for diagnosis of rotator cuff tear: comparison with observations at surgery in 58 shoulders. Acta Orthop Scand. 1991;62:465–467.

76.

Lee

Davis

McGroder

, et al. Analysis of low-field MRI scanners for evaluation of shoulder pathology based on arthroscopy. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014;2(7):2325967114540407.

77.

Lee

Yoon

Jee

. Diagnostic performance of indirect MR arthrography for the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears at 3.0 T. Acta Radiol. 2015;56(6):720–726.

78.

Lee

Yoon

Jee

Kwon

Cha

Yoo

. Comparison of three-dimensional isotropic and two-dimensional conventional indirect MR arthrography for the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears. Korean J Radiol. 2014;15(6):771–780.

79.

Lee

Yoon

Jung

Yoo

. Rotator cuff tears noncontrast MRI compared to MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol. 2015;44(12):1745–1754.

80.

Lee

Yun

Jin

Park

Ryu

. Comparison between 3D isotropic and 2D conventional MR arthrography for diagnosing rotator cuff tear and labral lesions: a meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;48(4):1034–1045.

81.

Lin

Yan

Xiao

, et al. The diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging for different types of subscapularis lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(7):2252–2258.

82.

Hung

Kuo

Chen

Lee

. Quantitative diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of partial-thickness rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(9):1433–1441.

83.

Loew

Kreitner

Runkel

Zoellner

Thelen

. MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison of low-field (0.2 T) vs high-field (1.5 T) imaging. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(6):989–996.

84.

Mack

Gannon

Kilcoyne

Matsen

RAR

. Sonographic evaluation of the rotator cuff: accuracy in patients without prior surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;234:21–27.

85.

Mack

Nyberg

Matsen

3rd Kilcoyne

Harvey

. Sonography of the postoperative shoulder. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;150(5):1089–1093.

86.

Magee

. Can isotropic fast gradient echo imaging be substituted for conventional T1 weighted sequences in shoulder MR arthrography at 3 Tesla? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:118–122.

87.

Magee

. MR versus MR arthrography in detection of supraspinatus tendon tears in patients without previous shoulder surgery. Skeletal Radiol. 2014;43:43–48.

88.

Magee

. 3-T MRI of the shoulder: is MR arthrography necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:86–92.

89.

Magee

, Williams D. 3.0-T MRI of the supraspinatus tendon. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(4):881–886.

90.

Magee

Gaenslen

Seitz

Hinson

Wetzel

. MR imaging of the shoulder after surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168(4):925–928.

91.

Malavolta

Assuncao

Guglielmetti

, et al. Accuracy of preoperative MRI in the diagnosis of subscapularis tears. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136(10):1425–1430.

92.

Martin-Hervas

Romero

Navas-Acien

Reboiras

Munuera

. Ultrasonographic and magnetic resonance images of rotator cuff lesions compared with arthroscopy or open surgery findings. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(5):410–415.

93.

Masaoka

Hashizume

Senda

Nishida

Nagoshi

Inoue

. Ultrasonographic analysis of shoulder rotator cuff tears. Acta Med Okayama. 1999;53(2):81–89.

94.

Massengill

Seeger

Yao

, et al. Labrocapsular ligamentous complex of the shoulder: normal anatomy, anatomic variation, and pitfalls of MR imaging and MR arthrography. Radiographics. 1994;14(6):1211–1223.

95.

Matava

Purcell

Rudzki

. Partial-thickness rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(9):1405–1417.

96.

McGarvey

Harb

Smith

Houghton

Corbett

Ajuied

. Diagnosis of rotator cuff tears using 3-Tesla MRI versus 3-Tesla MRA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiol. 2016;45(2):251–261.

97.

McInnes

MDF

Moher

Thombs

, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA. 2018;319(4):388–396.

98.

Meister

Thesing

Montgomery

Indelicato

Walczak

Fontenot

. MR arthrography of partial thickness tears of the undersurface of the rotator cuff: an arthroscopic correlation. Skeletal Radiol. 2004;33(3):136–141.

99.

Menten

Lesaffre

. A general framework for comparative Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:70.

100.

Middleton

Edelstein

Reinus

Melson

Murphy

. Ultrasonography of the rotator cuff: technique and normal anatomy. J Ultrasound Med. 1984;3(12):549–551.

101.

Middleton

Teefey

Yamaguchi

. Sonography of the rotator cuff: analysis of interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(5):1465–1468.

102.

Milosavljevic

Elvin

Rahme

. Ultrasonography of the rotator cuff: a comparison with arthroscopy in one-hundred-and-ninety consecutive cases. Acta Radiol. 2005;46(8):858–865.

103.

Misamore

Woodward

. Evaluation of degenerative lesions of the rotator cuff: a comparison of arthrography and ultrasonography. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(5):704–706.

104.

Modi

Karthikeyan

Marks

, et al. Accuracy of abduction-external rotation MRA versus standard MRA in the diagnosis of intra-articular shoulder pathology. Orthopedics. 2013;36(3):e337–e342.

105.

Mohtadi

Vellet

Clark

, et al. A prospective, double-blind comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopy in the evaluation of patients presenting with shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(3):258–265.

106.

Momenzadeh

Gerami

Sefidbakht

Dehghani

. Assessment of correlation between MRI and arthroscopic pathologic findings in the shoulder joint. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2015;3(4):286–290.

107.

Moosmayer

Heir

Smith

. Sonography of the rotator cuff in painful shoulders performed without knowledge of clinical information: results from 58 sonographic examinations with surgical correlation. J Clin Ultrasound. 2007;35:20–26.

108.

Moosmayer

Smith

. Diagnostic ultrasound of the shoulder: a method for experts only? Results from an orthopedic surgeon with relative inexpensive compared to operative findings. Acta Orthop. 2005;76:503–508.

109.

Motamedi

Urrea

Hancock

Hawkins

. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in determining the presence and size of recurrent rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(1):6–10.

110.

Murphy

Daines

Carr

Rees

. An independent learning method for orthopaedic surgeons performing shoulder ultrasound to identify full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(3):266–272.

111.

Naqvi

Jadaan

Harrington

. Accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for detection of full thickness rotator cuff tears. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2009;3(4):94–97.

112.

Nazarian

. The top 10 reasons musculoskeletal sonography is an important complementary or alternative technique to MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(6):1621–1626.

113.

Needell

Zlatkin

. Comparison of fat-saturation fast spin echo versus conventional spin-echo MRI in the detection of rotator cuff pathology. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;7(4):674–677.

114.

Nelson

Leather

Nirschl

Pettrone

Freedman

. Evaluation of the painful shoulder: a prospective comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomographic arthrography, ultrasonography, and operative findings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(5):707–716.

115.

Nyaga

Aerts

Arbyn

. ANOVA model for network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27(6):1766–1784.

116.

Yoon

Kwon

, et al. Comparison of indirect isotropic MR arthrography and conventional MR arthrography of labral lesions and rotator cuff tears: a prospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(2):473–479.

117.

Ostor

Richards

Tytherleigh-Strong

, et al. Validation of clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopy for the detection of rotator cuff lesions. Clin Rheumatol. 2013;32(9):1283–1291.

118.

Owen

Cooper

Quinn

Lees

Sutton

. Network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies identifies and ranks the optimal diagnostic tests and thresholds for health care policy and decision-making. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;99:64–74.

119.

Paavolainen

Ahovuo

. Ultrasonography and arthrography in the diagnosis of tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76(3):335–340.

120.

Palmer

Brown

Rosenthal

. Labral-ligamentous complex of the shoulder: evaluation with MR arthrography. Radiology. 1994;190(3):645–651.

121.

Palmer

Brown

Rosenthal

. Rotator cuff: evaluation with fat-suppressed MR arthrography. Radiology. 1993;188(3):683–687.

122.

Park

Lee

Kim

, et al. Evaluation of shoulder pathology: three-dimensional enhanced T1 high-resolution isotropic volume excitation MR vs two-dimensional fast spin echo T2 fat saturation MR. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1047):20140147.

123.

Park

Lee

Rho

Kwon

Kim

Chung

. The usefulness of the three-dimensional enhanced T1 high-resolution isotropic volume excitation MR in the evaluation of shoulder pathology: comparison with two-dimensional enhanced T1 fat saturation MR. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1054):20140830.

124.

Park

Lee

Park

Cheon

Ahn

Song

. Comparison of three-dimensional isotropic and conventional MR arthrography with respect to the diagnosis of rotator cuff and labral lesions: focus on isotropic fat-suppressed proton density and VIBE sequences. Clin Radiol. 2014;69(4):e173–e182.

125.

Park

Lee

Moon

, et al. MR arthrography of the labral capsular ligamentous complex in the shoulder: imaging variations and pitfalls. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175(3):667–672.

126.

Pattee

Snyder

. Sonographic evaluation of the rotator cuff: correlation with arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 1988;4(1):15–20.

127.

Perez

Massel

Barrera

, et al. Rotator cuff tears in the pediatric population: comparing findings on arthroscopic evaluation to pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018;9(suppl 1):S123–S128.

128.

Pfirrmann

Zanetti

Weishaupt

Gerber

Hodler

. Subscapularis tendon tears: detection and grading at MR arthrography. Radiology. 1999;213(3):709–714.

129.

Pierce

Nacey

Jones

, et al. Postoperative shoulder imaging: rotator cuff, labrum, and biceps tendon. Radiographics. 2016;36(6):1648–1671.

130.

Prickett

Teefey

Galatz

Calfee

Middleton

Yamaguchi

. Accuracy of ultrasound imaging of the rotator cuff in shoulders that are painful postoperatively. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1084–1089.

131.

Punwar

Blewitt

. Pre-operative departmental ultrasound of the rotator cuff: sensitivity and specificity in a regional specialist orthopaedic centre. Shoulder Elbow. 2014;6(2):72–74.

132.

Quinn

Sheley

Demlow

Szumowski

. Rotator cuff tendon tears: evaluation with fat-suppressed MR imaging with arthroscopic correlation in 100 patients. Radiology. 1995;195(2):497–500.

133.

Read

Perko

. Shoulder ultrasound: diagnostic accuracy for impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tear, and biceps tendon pathology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(3):264–271.

134.

Robertson

Schweitzer

Mitchell

, et al. Rotator cuff disorders: interobserver and intraobserver variation in diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology. 1995;194(3):831–835.

135.

Roy

Braen

Leblond

, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography, MRI and MR arthrography in the characterisation of rotator cuff disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(20):1316–1328.

136.

Rutten

Maresch

Jager

Blickman

van Holsbeeck

. Ultrasound of the rotator cuff with MRI and anatomic correlation. Eur J Radiol. 2007;62(3):427–436.

137.

Rutten

Spaargaren

van Loon

de Waal Malefijt

Kiemeney

Jager

. Detection of rotator cuff tears: the value of MRI following ultrasound. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(2):450–457.

138.

Sahin-Akyar

Miller

Staron

McCarthy

Feldman

. Gradient-echo versus fat-suppressed fast spin-echo MR imaging of rotator cuff tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171(1):223–227.

139.

Saqib

Harris

Funk

. Comparison of magnetic resonance arthrography with arthroscopy for imaging of shoulder injuries: retrospective study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2017;99(4):271–274.

140.

Schreinemachers

van der Hulst

Willems

Bipat

van der Woude

. Detection of partial-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears: is a single direct MR arthrography series in ABER position as accurate as conventional MR arthrography? Skeletal Radiol. 2009;38:967–975.

141.

Seibold

Mallisee

Erickson

Boynton

Raasch

Timins

. Rotator cuff: evaluation with US and MR imaging. Radiographics. 1999;19(3):685–705.

142.

Seltzer

Finberg

Weissman

Kido

Collier

. Arthrosonography: gray-scale ultrasound evaluation of the shoulder. Radiology. 1979;132(2):467–468.

143.

Shalaby

Shehata

KAA

Farouk

. Conventional MR in rotator cuff pathology: is it sufficient? The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2017;48(1):183–188.

144.

Shankman

Bencardino

Beltran

. Glenohumeral instability: evaluation using MR arthrography of the shoulder. Skeletal Radiol. 1999;28(7):365–382.

145.

Shellock

Bert

Fritts

Gundry

Easton

Crues

JVR

. Evaluation of the rotator cuff and glenoid labrum using a 0.2-Tesla extremity magnetic resonance (MR) system: MR results compared to surgical findings. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;14:763–770.

146.

Shi

Mullen

Freehill

Lin

Warner

Higgins

. Accuracy of long head of the biceps subluxation as a predictor for subscapularis tears. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(4):615–619.

147.

Singh

Yuvarajan

Maini

Gautam

. Evaluation of ultrasound as a tool for etiological diagnosis of painful arc syndrome. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2010;1:81–84.

148.

Sipola

Niemitukia

Kroger

Hofling

Vaatainen

. Detection and quantification of rotator cuff tears with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective study in 77 consecutive patients with a surgical reference. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010;36(12):1981–1989.

149.

Smith

Back

Toms

Hing

. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for rotator cuff tears in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2011;66(11):1036–1048.

150.

Soble

Kaye

Guay

. Rotator cuff tear: clinical experience with sonographic detection. Radiology. 1989;173(2):319–321.

151.

Sonin

Peduto

Fitzgerald

Callahan

Bresler

. MR imaging of the rotator cuff mechanism: comparison of spin-echo and turbo spin-echo sequences. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(2):333–338.

152.

Sonnabend

Hughes

Giuffre

Farrell

. The clinical role of shoulder ultrasound. Aust N Z J Surg. 1997;67(9):630–633.

153.

Sperling

Potter

Craig

Flatow

Warren

. Magnetic resonance imaging of painful shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(4):315–321.

154.

Steinbach

Palmer

Schweitzer

. Special focus session: MR arthrography. Radiographics. 2002;22(5):1223–1246.

155.

Stetson

Phillips

Deutsch

. The use of magnetic resonance arthrography to detect partial-thickness rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:81–88.

156.

Stoppino

Ciuffreda

Rossi

, et al. Lesions of the rotator cuff footprint: diagnostic performance of MR arthrography compared with arthroscopy. Musculoskelet Surg. 2013;97(suppl 2):S197–S202.

157.

Subhas

Benedick

Obuchowski

, et al. Comparison of a fast 5-minute shoulder MRI protocol with a standard shoulder MRI protocol: a multiinstitutional multireader study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(4):W146–W154.

158.

Swen

Jacobs

Algra

, et al. Sonography and magnetic resonance imaging equivalent for the assessment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42(10):2231–2238.

159.

Takagishi

Makino

Takahira

Ikeda

Tsuruno

Itoman

. Ultrasonography for diagnosis of rotator cuff tear. Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25(3):221–224.

160.

Teefey

Hasan

Middleton

Patel

Wright

Yamaguchi

. Ultrasonography of the rotator cuff: a comparison of ultrasonographic and arthroscopic findings in one hundred consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(4):498–504.

161.

Teefey

Middleton

Payne

Yamaguchi

. Detection and measurement of rotator cuff tears with sonography: analysis of diagnostic errors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(6):1768–1773.

162.

Teefey

Rubin

Middleton

Hildebolt

Leibold

Yamaguchi

. Detection and quantification of rotator cuff tears: comparison of ultrasonographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and arthroscopic findings in seventy-one consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(4):708–716.

163.

Teng

Liu

Zhou

Chevalier

Klar

. Effectiveness of 3-dimensional shoulder ultrasound in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(37):e12405.

164.

Torstensen

Hollinshead

. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopy in the evaluation of shoulder pathology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999;8(1):42–45.

165.

Toyoda

Ito

Tomo

Nakao

Koike

Takaoka

. Evaluation of rotator cuff tears with magnetic resonance arthrography. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;439:109–115.

166.

Tuite

Asinger

Orwin

. Angled oblique sagittal MR imaging of rotator cuff tears: comparison with standard oblique sagittal images. Skeletal Radiol. 2001;30(5):262–269.

167.

Tuite

Yandow

DeSmet

Orwin

Quintana

. Diagnosis of partial and complete rotator cuff tears using combined gradient echo and spin echo imaging. Skeletal Radiol. 1994;23(7):541–545.

168.

Vahlensieck

Peterfy

Wischer

, et al. Indirect MR arthrography: optimization and clinical applications. Radiology. 1996;200(1):249–254.

169.

Vahlensieck

Sommer

Textor

, et al. Indirect MR arthrography: techniques and applications. Eur Radiol. 1998;8(2):232–235.

170.

van Holsbeeck

Kolowich

Eyler

, et al. US depiction of partial-thickness tear of the rotator cuff. Radiology. 1995;197(2):443–446.

171.

van Kampen

van den Berg

van der Woude

, et al. The diagnostic value of the combination of patient characteristics, history, and clinical shoulder tests for the diagnosis of rotator cuff tear. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:70.

172.

van Moppes

Veldkamp

Roorda

. Role of shoulder ultrasonography in the evaluation of the painful shoulder. Eur J Radiol. 1995;19(2):142–146.

173.

Venu

Howlett

Garikipati

Anderson

Bonnici

. Evaluation of the symptomatic supraspinatus tendon: a comparison of ultrasound and arthroscopy. Radiography. 2002;8:235–240.

174.

Vlychou

Dailiana

Fotiadou

Papanagiotou

Fezoulidis

Malizos

. Symptomatic partial rotator cuff tears: diagnostic performance of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging with surgical correlation. Acta Radiol. 2009;50(1):101–105.

175.

Voigt

Mosier

Huber

. In-office diagnostic arthroscopy for knee and shoulder intra-articular injuries: its potential impact on cost savings in the United States. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):203.

176.

Wagner

Schweitzer

Morrison

Jr Fenlin

Bartolozzi

. Shoulder instability: accuracy of MR imaging performed after surgery in depicting recurrent injury. Initial findings. Radiology. 2002;222:196–203.

177.

Wahl

Siegel

Coleman

Gatsonis

; Group PETS. Prospective multicenter study of axillary nodal staging by positron emission tomography in breast cancer: a report of the staging breast cancer with PET Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(2):277–285.

178.

Waldt

Bruegel

Mueller

, et al. Rotator cuff tears: assessment with MR arthrography in 275 patients with arthroscopic correlation. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(2):491–498.

179.

Wallny

Schild

Schulze Bertelsbeck

Hansmann

Kraft

. Three-dimensional ultrasonography in the diagnosis of rotator cuff lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001;27(6):745–749.

180.

Ward

JRN

Lotfi

Dias

McBride

. Diagnostic difficulties in the radiological assessment of subscapularis tears. J Orthop. 2018;15(1):99–101.

181.

Whiting

Rutjes

Westwood

, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–536.

182.

Wiener

Seitz

Jr . Sonography of the shoulder in patients with tears of the rotator cuff: accuracy and value for selecting surgical options. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160(1):103–107.

183.

Wnorowski

Levinsohn

Chamberlain

McAndrew

. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of the rotator cuff: is it really accurate? Arthroscopy. 1997;13(6):710–719.

184.

Yagci

Manisali

Yilmaz

, et al. Indirect MR arthrography of the shoulder in detection of rotator cuff ruptures. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(2):258–262.

185.

Yamakawa

Hashizume

Ichikawa

Itadera

Inoue

. Comparative studies of MRI and operative findings in rotator cuff tear. Acta Med Okayama. 2001;55(5):261–268.

186.

Yamamoto

Takagishi

Osawa

, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of a rotator cuff tear in the general population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(1):116–120.

187.

Yen

Chiou

Chou

, et al. Six surgery-correlated sonographic signs for rotator cuff tears: emphasis on partial-thickness tear. Clin Imaging. 2004;28(1):69–76.

188.

Zehetgruber

Lang

Wurnig

. Distinction between supraspinatus, infraspinatus and subscapularis tendon tears with ultrasound in 332 surgically confirmed cases. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002;28:711–717.

189.

Ziegler

. The use of in-office, orthopaedist-performed ultrasound of the shoulder to evaluate and manage rotator cuff disorders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(3):291–297.

190.

Zlatkin

Hoffman

Shellock

. Assessment of the rotator cuff and glenoid labrum using an extremity MR system: MR results compared to surgical findings from a multi-center study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;19:623–631.

191.

Zlatkin

Iannotti

Roberts

, et al. Rotator cuff tears: diagnostic performance of MR imaging. Radiology. 1989;172(1):223–229.

Detecting Rotator Cuff Tears: A Network Meta-analysis of 144 Diagnostic Studies

Abstract

Background:

Purpose:

Study Design:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Methods

Search Strategy

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Data Extraction

Risk of Bias

Statistical Analysis

Results

Studies Retrieved and Characteristics

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Comparison of MRA, MRI, and US

High- or Low-field MRA, High- or Low-field MRI, and High- or Low-frequency US

Effect of Publication Year on US Accuracy

Other Subgroup Analyses

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix

References