TY - JOUR
T1 - Accuracy of Currently Available Methods in Quantifying Anterior Glenoid Bone Loss
T2 - Controversy Regarding Gold Standard—A Systematic Review
AU - Verweij, Lukas P.E.
AU - Schuit, Alexander A.
AU - Kerkhoffs, Gino M.M.J.
AU - Blankevoort, Leendert
AU - van den Bekerom, Michel P.J.
AU - van Deurzen, Derek F.P.
PY - 2020/8/1
Y1 - 2020/8/1
N2 - Purpose: To determine the accuracy of glenoid bone loss–measuring methods and assess the influence of the imaging modality on the accuracy of the measurement methods. Methods: A literature search was performed in the PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane databases from 1994 to June 11, 2019. The guidelines and algorithm of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) were used. Included for analysis were articles reporting the accuracy of glenoid bone loss–measuring methods in patients with anterior shoulder instability by comparing an index test and a reference test. Furthermore, articles were included if anterior glenoid bone loss was quantified using a ruler during arthroscopy or by measurements on plain radiograph(s), computed tomography (CT) images, or magnetic resonance images in living humans. The risk of bias was determined using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Results: Twenty-one studies were included, showing 17 different methods. Three studies reported on the accuracy of methods performed on 3-dimensional CT. Two studies determined the accuracy of glenoid bone loss–measuring methods performed on radiography by comparing them with methods performed on 3-dimensional CT. Six studies determined the accuracy of methods performed using imaging modalities with an arthroscopic method as the reference. Eight studies reported on the influence of the imaging modality on the accuracy of the methods. There was no consensus regarding the gold standard. Because of the heterogeneity of the data, a quantitative analysis was not feasible. Conclusions: Consensus regarding the gold standard in measuring glenoid bone loss is lacking. The use of heterogeneous data and varying methods contributes to differences in the gold standard, and accuracy therefore cannot be determined. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level II, III, and IV studies.
AB - Purpose: To determine the accuracy of glenoid bone loss–measuring methods and assess the influence of the imaging modality on the accuracy of the measurement methods. Methods: A literature search was performed in the PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane databases from 1994 to June 11, 2019. The guidelines and algorithm of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) were used. Included for analysis were articles reporting the accuracy of glenoid bone loss–measuring methods in patients with anterior shoulder instability by comparing an index test and a reference test. Furthermore, articles were included if anterior glenoid bone loss was quantified using a ruler during arthroscopy or by measurements on plain radiograph(s), computed tomography (CT) images, or magnetic resonance images in living humans. The risk of bias was determined using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Results: Twenty-one studies were included, showing 17 different methods. Three studies reported on the accuracy of methods performed on 3-dimensional CT. Two studies determined the accuracy of glenoid bone loss–measuring methods performed on radiography by comparing them with methods performed on 3-dimensional CT. Six studies determined the accuracy of methods performed using imaging modalities with an arthroscopic method as the reference. Eight studies reported on the influence of the imaging modality on the accuracy of the methods. There was no consensus regarding the gold standard. Because of the heterogeneity of the data, a quantitative analysis was not feasible. Conclusions: Consensus regarding the gold standard in measuring glenoid bone loss is lacking. The use of heterogeneous data and varying methods contributes to differences in the gold standard, and accuracy therefore cannot be determined. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level II, III, and IV studies.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088828342&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85088828342&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2020.04.012
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2020.04.012
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32330485
SN - 0749-8063
VL - 36
SP - 2295-2313.e1
JO - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
JF - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
IS - 8
ER -