Introduction
Knee injuries are common in individuals that perform in the sports that require quick movements. These quick movements put the person at a high risk of suffering an injury to the knee. Of these injuries, the most common are meniscal and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. When a person suffers a potential injury they must be diagnosed by a qualified healthcare professional prior to deciding on an intervention to correct the tear. There are many different methods of diagnosis: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), arthroscopy and clinical tests. There are three clinical tests that are commonly used which are the pivot-shift test, drawer, and Lachman’s test. The patient’s socioeconomic status, prior level of function, and desired …show more content…
Did the investigators limit the review to high-quality studies? The methods through which the articles were chosen was rigorous, but there was no mention of the level of evidence of the studies.
2. Did the investigators implement a comprehensive search and study selection process? Yes. The researchers performed a rigorous search from several databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and AMED. The inclusion criteria consisted of articles that are written in English or German, included all subjects of all ages, and who exhibited acute or chronic symptomatology. Exclusion criteria were: animal or cadaver studies, studies that utilized device supported exams, studies that lacked description of the test performed.
3. Did the investigators assess the quality of individual studies with standardized processes and/or tools? Yes. Two independent investigators used the QAREL tool to assess methodological quality.
4. Did the investigators provide details about the research validity (or quality) of studies included in the review? Yes. The investigators used the QAREL tool to assess validity and determine the quality of the study. A table which indicated level of bias in each study was included in the methodological explanation of the …show more content…
Were all subjects evaluated with the comparison diagnostic test? Yes. All subjects had an MRI prior to having an arthroscopy, and then the results of the two diagnostic test were compared to each other.
5. Were the individuals performing and interpreting each test’s results unaware of the other test’s results (i.e. were they masked or blinded?) No. The same tester evaluated and prepared the subjects for both arthroscopy and MRI.
6. Was the time between application of the index test and the “gold standard” comparison diagnostic test short enough to minimize the opportunity for change in the subjects condition? The authors of this study did not indicate a time period elapsed between the evaluation/testing and the preparation and subsequent arthroscopic operation.
7. Did the investigators confirm their findings with a new set of subjects? No. The investigators did not confirm their findings with additional tests on other sets of subjects.
8. Do you have enough confidence in the research validity of this paper to consider using this evidence with your patient? No. The study conducted was a low level study and did not have the explicit details needed to make a conclusion based upon the information given. For example, there was no explicit time frame indicated between the the MRI and
Knee injuries are common in individuals that perform in the sports that require quick movements. These quick movements put the person at a high risk of suffering an injury to the knee. Of these injuries, the most common are meniscal and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. When a person suffers a potential injury they must be diagnosed by a qualified healthcare professional prior to deciding on an intervention to correct the tear. There are many different methods of diagnosis: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), arthroscopy and clinical tests. There are three clinical tests that are commonly used which are the pivot-shift test, drawer, and Lachman’s test. The patient’s socioeconomic status, prior level of function, and desired …show more content…
Did the investigators limit the review to high-quality studies? The methods through which the articles were chosen was rigorous, but there was no mention of the level of evidence of the studies.
2. Did the investigators implement a comprehensive search and study selection process? Yes. The researchers performed a rigorous search from several databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and AMED. The inclusion criteria consisted of articles that are written in English or German, included all subjects of all ages, and who exhibited acute or chronic symptomatology. Exclusion criteria were: animal or cadaver studies, studies that utilized device supported exams, studies that lacked description of the test performed.
3. Did the investigators assess the quality of individual studies with standardized processes and/or tools? Yes. Two independent investigators used the QAREL tool to assess methodological quality.
4. Did the investigators provide details about the research validity (or quality) of studies included in the review? Yes. The investigators used the QAREL tool to assess validity and determine the quality of the study. A table which indicated level of bias in each study was included in the methodological explanation of the …show more content…
Were all subjects evaluated with the comparison diagnostic test? Yes. All subjects had an MRI prior to having an arthroscopy, and then the results of the two diagnostic test were compared to each other.
5. Were the individuals performing and interpreting each test’s results unaware of the other test’s results (i.e. were they masked or blinded?) No. The same tester evaluated and prepared the subjects for both arthroscopy and MRI.
6. Was the time between application of the index test and the “gold standard” comparison diagnostic test short enough to minimize the opportunity for change in the subjects condition? The authors of this study did not indicate a time period elapsed between the evaluation/testing and the preparation and subsequent arthroscopic operation.
7. Did the investigators confirm their findings with a new set of subjects? No. The investigators did not confirm their findings with additional tests on other sets of subjects.
8. Do you have enough confidence in the research validity of this paper to consider using this evidence with your patient? No. The study conducted was a low level study and did not have the explicit details needed to make a conclusion based upon the information given. For example, there was no explicit time frame indicated between the the MRI and