1Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
2Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
*Corresponding author: Faiq I. Gorial, email: faiqig@gmail.com
Online published on 6 April, 2019.
Meniscal injury has significant impact on patients’ quality of life. Reports on comparison of clinical assessment with Ultrasound are limited.
To assess the diagnostic value of clinical assessment in comparison with ultrasound (US) in meniscal injury.
This observational cross sectional diagnostic accuracy study involved 50 patients with clinical features of meniscal tears. Ultrasound was done for each patients and read by a single radiologist blinded to the clinical features and diagnostic accuracy was measured.
There was no statistical significant difference between clinical assessment and US. Meniscal injury detected by clinical assessment was 41(82%) patients versus 35(70%) patients detected by US evaluation, p=1.00. Krippendorf alpha 0.023, percent of agreement 64%). Diagnostic performance of clinical assessment of meniscal injury was accuracy 82%, sensitivity 83%, positive predictive value (PPV) 70.73%, negative predictive value(NPV) 33.33%, positive likelihood ratio (LR+) 1.04, negative likelihood ratio (LR-) 0.86%, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 1.21.
Clinical assessment was a reliable and a valid method for diagnosis of meniscal injury compared to US evaluation.
Meniscal tears, knee injury, ultrasound, clinical features, clinical assessment
