PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Observer experience affects MRI accuracy for dog knee meniscal tears

By Böttcher, Peter et al.·Published in Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association·2012·Department of Small Animal Medicine, Germany·View original on PubMed

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: Effects of observer on the diagnostic accuracy of low-field MRI for detecting canine meniscal tears.

Species:
dog

Plain-English summary

A group of dogs with knee problems, specifically those suspected of having meniscal tears due to cranial cruciate ligament issues, underwent low-field MRI scans to check for tears. Fifteen different observers, with varying levels of experience, reviewed the MRI results, but the accuracy of their diagnoses was inconsistent. While some observers were able to identify medial meniscal tears with moderate accuracy, the overall ability to detect tears was poor. This study suggests that the effectiveness of low-field MRI for diagnosing meniscal tears in dogs can vary significantly depending on who is interpreting the images.

People also search for: dog knee pain meniscal tear · low-field MRI accuracy in dogs · diagnosing dog meniscal tears

Abstract

Low-field MRI (lfMRI) has become increasingly accepted as a method for diagnosing canine meniscal tears in clinical practice. However, observer effects on diagnostic accuracy have not been previously reported. In this study, 50 consecutive stifle joints with clinical and radiologic evidence of cranial cruciate ligament insufficiency were investigated by lfMRI and arthroscopy. Fifteen observers who had varying levels of experience and who were unaware of arthroscopic findings independently reviewed lfMRI studies and recorded whether lateral and medial meniscal tears were present. Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV)) was determined for each observer and median values were calculated for all observers, using arthroscopy as the reference standard. Interrater agreement was determined based on intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis. Observer level of experience was compared with diagnostic sensitivity and specificity using correlation analysis. Based on pooled data for all observers, median sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for lfMRI diagnosis of lateral meniscal tears were 0.00, 0.94, 0.05, and 0.94, respectively. Median sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for medial meniscal tears were 0.74, 0.89, 0.83, and 0.79, respectively. Interrater agreement for all menisci was fair (0.51). Menisci were less consistently scored as having no tears (ICC = 0.13) than those scored as having tears (ICC = 0.50). No significant correlations between observer experience and diagnostic sensitivity/specificity were identified. Findings indicated that the accuracy of lfMRI for diagnosing canine meniscal tears was poor to fair and observer-dependent. Future studies are needed to develop standardized and widely accepted lfMRI criteria for diagnosing meniscal tears.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22897385/