2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2018.04.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative measurement of cartilage volume is possible using two-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging data sets

Abstract: This study has demonstrated that a reproducible, responsive, and clinically valid quantitative measurement of cartilage volume can be made using 2D TSE scans with a modest loss of responsiveness compared to 3D scans.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The subset was chosen randomly for prior MRI measurement methodology development and was designed to follow the case and control distributions of the full FNIH sample [ 38 ]. The FNIH subset included radiographic and pain progressors (n = 97), radiographic-only progressors (n = 52), pain-only progressors (n = 52), and non-progressors (n = 100) (we had access to the raw data from this study) [ 38 , 39 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The subset was chosen randomly for prior MRI measurement methodology development and was designed to follow the case and control distributions of the full FNIH sample [ 38 ]. The FNIH subset included radiographic and pain progressors (n = 97), radiographic-only progressors (n = 52), pain-only progressors (n = 52), and non-progressors (n = 100) (we had access to the raw data from this study) [ 38 , 39 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The FNIH study divided the participants into 4 groups based on pain and/or radiographic progression. Following the design of a previous study [ 23 ], we randomly selected 301 of the 600 FNIH participants such that the proportion for each group matched the main study as closely as possible. The 301 subjects were distributed as follows: Group 1: radiographic and pain progressors (n ​= ​97), Group 2: radiographic-only progressors (n ​= ​52), Group 3: pain-only progressors (n ​= ​52), Group 4: no radiographic or pain progressors (n ​= ​100).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%