Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{metadata.Headline}}

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Mark Blyth 1,*, Iain Anthony 1, Bernard Francq 2, Katriona Brooksbank 1, Paul Downie 3, Andrew Powell 1, Bryn Jones 1, Angus MacLean 1, Alex McConnachie 2, John Norrie 4

1 Orthopaedic Research Unit, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK
2 Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, Glasgow University, Glasgow, UK
3 Muirside Medical Practice, Baillieston Health Centre, Glasgow, UK
4 Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
* Corresponding author Email: Mark.Blyth@ggc.scot.nhs.uk

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Reliable non-invasive diagnosis of meniscal tears is difficult. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often used but is expensive and incidental findings are problematic. There are a number of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of meniscal tears that are simple, cheap and non-invasive.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Thessaly test and to determine if the Thessaly test (alone or in combination with other physical tests) can obviate the need for further investigation by MRI or arthroscopy for patients with a suspected meniscal tear.

DESIGN

Single-centre prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

SETTING

Although the study was performed in a secondary care setting, it was designed to replicate the results that would have been achieved in a primary care setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Two cohorts of patients were recruited: patients with knee pathology (nâ =â 292) and a control cohort with no knee pathology (nâ =â 75).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of the Thessaly test in determining the presence of meniscal tears.

METHODS

Participants were assessed by both a primary care clinician and a musculoskeletal clinician. Both clinicians performed the Thessaly test, McMurray's test, Apley's test, joint line tenderness test and took a standardised clinical history from the patient.

RESULTS

The Thessaly test had a sensitivity of 0.66, a specificity of 0.39 and a diagnostic accuracy of 54% when utilised by primary care clinicians. This compared with a sensitivity of 0.62, a specificity of 0.55 and diagnostic accuracy of 59% when used by musculoskeletal clinicians. The diagnostics accuracy of the other tests when used by primary care clinicians was 54% for McMurray's test, 53% for Apley's test, 54% for the joint line tenderness test and 55% for clinical history. For primary care clinicians, age and past history of osteoarthritis were both significant predictors of MRI diagnosis of meniscal tears. For musculoskeletal clinicians age and a positive diagnosis of meniscal tears on clinical history taking were significant predictors of MRI diagnosis. No physical tests were significant predictors of MRI diagnosis in our multivariate models. The specificity of MRI diagnosis was tested in subgroup of patients who went on to have a knee arthroscopy and was found to be low [0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.77)], although the sensitivity was 1.0.

CONCLUSIONS

The Thessaly test was no better at diagnosing meniscal tears than other established physical tests. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of all physical tests was too low to be of routine clinical value as an alternative to MRI. Caution needs to be exercised in the indiscriminate use of MRI scanning in the identification of meniscal tears in the diagnosis of the painful knee, due to the low specificity seen in the presence of concomitant knee pathology. Further research is required to determine the true diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of MRI for the detection of meniscal tears.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trial ISRCTN43527822.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Reliable non-invasive diagnosis of meniscal tears is difficult. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often used but is expensive and incidental findings are problematic. There are a number of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of meniscal tears that are simple, cheap and non-invasive.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Thessaly test and to determine if the Thessaly test (alone or in combination with other physical tests) can obviate the need for further investigation by MRI or arthroscopy for patients with a suspected meniscal tear.

DESIGN

Single-centre prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

SETTING

Although the study was performed in a secondary care setting, it was designed to replicate the results that would have been achieved in a primary care setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Two cohorts of patients were recruited: patients with knee pathology (nâ =â 292) and a control cohort with no knee pathology (nâ =â 75).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of the Thessaly test in determining the presence of meniscal tears.

METHODS

Participants were assessed by both a primary care clinician and a musculoskeletal clinician. Both clinicians performed the Thessaly test, McMurray's test, Apley's test, joint line tenderness test and took a standardised clinical history from the patient.

RESULTS

The Thessaly test had a sensitivity of 0.66, a specificity of 0.39 and a diagnostic accuracy of 54% when utilised by primary care clinicians. This compared with a sensitivity of 0.62, a specificity of 0.55 and diagnostic accuracy of 59% when used by musculoskeletal clinicians. The diagnostics accuracy of the other tests when used by primary care clinicians was 54% for McMurray's test, 53% for Apley's test, 54% for the joint line tenderness test and 55% for clinical history. For primary care clinicians, age and past history of osteoarthritis were both significant predictors of MRI diagnosis of meniscal tears. For musculoskeletal clinicians age and a positive diagnosis of meniscal tears on clinical history taking were significant predictors of MRI diagnosis. No physical tests were significant predictors of MRI diagnosis in our multivariate models. The specificity of MRI diagnosis was tested in subgroup of patients who went on to have a knee arthroscopy and was found to be low [0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.77)], although the sensitivity was 1.0.

CONCLUSIONS

The Thessaly test was no better at diagnosing meniscal tears than other established physical tests. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of all physical tests was too low to be of routine clinical value as an alternative to MRI. Caution needs to be exercised in the indiscriminate use of MRI scanning in the identification of meniscal tears in the diagnosis of the painful knee, due to the low specificity seen in the presence of concomitant knee pathology. Further research is required to determine the true diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of MRI for the detection of meniscal tears.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trial ISRCTN43527822.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions