Table 1 Baseline characteristics of included studies
From: Assessment of meniscal extrusion with ultrasonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Study | Study design (level of evidence) | Study description | Gender (m, %) | Age (mean ± SD) | BMI | MCMS | Value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Patient knee cohort | Study size | Measurements of interest | |||||||||
Change (Δ) in meniscal extrusion between groups using US | Intraclass correlation for the reliability of US | Validation of US with MRI correlation | |||||||||
Verdonk 2004 [20] | Prospective cohort (II) | 10 LMA 10 healthy | 10 (20 knees) | Yes: (1) ΔLME between supine (NWB) & UPS/BPS (FWB) position in both cohorts (2) ΔLME between healthy & LMA knees in all positions | Yes: Intrarater reliability for ΔLME using US in all positions for all knees | No | NR | 33.8 ± 6.75 | NR | 50 | Poor |
Ko 2007 [8] | Prospective cohort (II) | 97 healthy 141 OA (KL 1–2: 85, 3–4:56) | 238 | Yes: (1) ΔMME between healthy & OA knees, and between K/L grades in standing (FWB) position | NI | NI | 94 (39.5) | 60.5 ± 13.1 | NR | 66 | Fair |
Iagnocco 2012 [35] | Prospective case series (IV) | OA K/L unknown | 9 (17 knees) | NI | Yes: Interrater reliability for ΔMME using US in supine NWB position | NI | 2 (22.2) | 61.33 ± 7.35 | 27.5 ± 4.3 | 50 | Poor |
Kawaguchi 2012 [19] | Prospective cohort (II) | 20 healthy 78 OA (K/L 1:25, 2:33, 3:14, 4:6) | 98 | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) & standing (FWB) position in both cohorts (2) ΔMME between healthy & OA knees, and between K/L grades in all positions | Yes: Intrarater reliability for ΔMME using US in all positions for all knees | NI | 30 (30.6) | 66 ± 9.2 | NR | 60 | Fair |
Acebes 2013 [28] | Prospective cohort (II) | 33 OA (K/L unknown) 13 healthy | 32 (46 knees) | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB), UPS pre- and post-walk (FWB) positions in both cohorts (2) ΔMME between healthy and OA knees in all positions | Yes. Intra- and interrater reliability for ΔMME using US in all positions for all knees | NI | 5 (10.9) | 63.6 ± 8.1 | 27.9 ± 5.3 | 63 | Fair |
Yanagisawa 2014 [53] | Prospective cohort (II) | 44 healthy 87 OA (K/L 2:27, 3:30, 4:30) | 81 (131 knees) | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) and standing (FWB) positions in both cohorts (2) ΔMME between healthy and OA knees, and between K/L grades in all positions | Yes: Intrarater reliability for ΔMME using US in all positions for all knees | NI | 27 (33.3) | 62.8 ± 11.5 | NR | 81 | Good |
Yanagisawa 2014* [54] | Prospective case series (IV) | 83 knee pain 719 healthy | 401 (802 knees) | NI | Yes: Intrarater reliability for ΔMME using US in standing FWB position for all knees | NI | 149 (37.2) | 63.5 ± 12.5 | 23.7 ± 3.0 | 69 | Fair |
Nogueira-Barbosa 2015 [42] | Prospective case series (IV) | Chronic pain | 93 | NI | Yes: Intra- and interrater reliability for ΔMME using US in supine NWB position | Yes: For MME in supine NWB position | 50 (53.8) | 41.5 ± 13.8 | 28.7 ± 5.8 | 78 | Good |
Yanagisawa 2015 [52] | Prospective cohort (II) | 299 healthy 151 OA (K/L unknown) | 225 (450 knees) | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) & standing (FWB) positions in both cohorts (2) ΔMME between healthy and OA knees in all positions | NI | NI | 71 (15.8) | 65.8 ± 9.4 | NR | 69 | Fair |
Podlipska 2016 [45] | Prospective cohort (II) | 79 OA (K/L 0:2, 1:21, 2:19, 3:20, 4:17) 80 healthy | 159 | NI | Yes: Intrarater reliability for ΔMME using US in supine NWB position for all knees | No | 60 (37.7) | 57.7 ± 11.4 | 27.0 ± 4.3 | 80 | Good |
Razek 2016 [46] | Prospective case series (IV) | OA (K/L unknown) | 80 | NI | Yes: Interrater reliability for ΔMME using US in supine NWB position | NI | 24 (30) | NR | NR | 60 | Fair |
Chiba 2017 [31] | Prospective case series (IV) | OA (KL ≥ 2) | 270 (460 knees) | NI | Yes: Interrater reliability for ΔMME using US in supine NWB position | NI | 70 (25.9) | 60.5 ± 10.8 | 23.5 ± 3.5 | 79 | Good |
Ishii 2017 [36] | Prospective cohort (II) | 22 healthy 31 OA (K/L 2–4) | 29 (53 knees) | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) & standing (FWB) positions in both cohorts (2) ΔMME between healthy and OA knees in all positions | NI | NI | 5 (17.2) | 72.3 ± 6.9 | 24.0 ± 3.0 | 63 | Fair |
Murakami 2017 [41] | Prospective cohort (II) | 32 K/L 1 14 K/L 2 | 46 | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) and standing (FWB) positions in both cohorts (2) ΔMME between K/L grades in all positions | Yes: Intra- and interrater reliability for ΔMME using US in all positions for all knees | NI | 16 (34.8) | 70.6 ± 2.8 | 24.1 ± 2.9 | 65 | Fair |
Achtnich 2018 [29] | Prospective case series (IV) | Healthy | 75 | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) and standing (FWB) positions | Yes: Intrarater reliability for ΔMME using US in all positions | No | 17 (22.7) | 39.6 ± 13.5 | 23.6 ± 3.9 | 71 | Good |
Diermeier 2019 [32] | Prospective case series (IV) | Healthy athletes | 18 | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) and standing (FWB) position in healthy knees (2) ΔMME between marathon stages in all positions | NI | No | 13 (72.2) | 37.4 ± 8.3 | 21.4 ± 1.2 | 67 | Fair |
Karpinski 2019 [40] | Prospective cohort (II) | 25 Root tear 25 healthy | 50 | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) and standing (FWB) position in both cohorts (2) ΔMME between MT and non-MT groups in all positions | NI | No | 27 (54) | 57.8 ± 6.8 | 26 ± 3.3 | 72 | Good |
Ozdemir 2019 [44] | Prospective cohort (II) | 91 OA (K/L 1:29, 2:34, 3:20, 4:8) 11 healthy | 102 | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) and standing (FWB) positions in both cohorts (2) ΔMME between healthy and OA knees, and between K/L grades in all positions | NI | No | 44 (43.1) | 48.1 ± 11.3 | 28.8 ± 5.7 | 72 | Good |
Elkwesny 2020 [33] | Prospective case series (IV) | OA with MMPRT (K/L unknown) | 30 | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) and standing (FWB) position | NI | No | 6 (20) | 47.8 ± 7.58 | NR | 59 | Fair |
Ishii 2020 [37] | Prospective cohort (II) | 23 K/L 2 21 K/L 3–4 | 44 | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) and UPS (FWB) positions in both cohorts (2) ΔMME between KL grades in all positions | Yes: Intrarater reliability for ΔMME using US in all positions for all knees | NI | 22 (50) | 68.9 ± 9.6 | 25.1 ± 3.1 | 58 | Fair |
Ishii 2020* [39] | Prospective cohort (II) | 6 Healthy 6 OA (K/L 2–3) | 12 | Yes: (1) ΔMME between OA and healthy knees in standing FWB position | Yes: Intrarater reliability for ΔMME using US in standing FWB position for all knees | NI | 8 (75) | 46.8 | 22.9 | 54 | Poor |
Reisner 2020 [47] | Prospective cohort (II) | 48 healthy 42 OA (K/L unknown) | 45 (90 knees) | NI | Yes: Intra- and interrater reliability for ΔMME using US in all positions for all knees | NI | 16 (35.6) | 45 ± 5.46 | 27.0 ± 3.8 | 74 | Good |
Shimozaki 2020 [50] | Prospective case series (IV) | Healthy | 18 | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) & DLU/SLU (FWB) position | NI | Yes: For MME in all positions | 13 (72.2) | 21.8 ± 3.1 | 21.1 ± 1.7 | 78 | Good |
Cho JC 2021 [30] | Prospective case series (IV) | Healthy | 35 (60 knees) | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB), standing (FWB), and Thessaly (FWB) positions | NI | NI | Not reported | 29 ± 4.5 | NR | 63 | Fair |
Reisner 2021 [48] | Prospective cohort (II) | 48 healthy 42 medial OA | 45 (90 knees) | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) and standing (FWB) positions in both cohorts (2) ΔMME between healthy and OA knees in all positions | NI | NI | 16 (35.6) | 45 ± 5.46 | 27 ± 3.8 | 63 | Fair |
Shimozaki 2021 [49] | Prospective case series (II) | Pre-OA knees (KL 0/1) | 100 | NI | Yes: Intrarater reliability for ΔMME using US in 0° and 90° flexion for all knees | Yes: For MME in supine NWB position | 39 (39) | 64.3 ± 7.9 | NR | 74 | Good |
Winkler 2021 [51] | Prospective cohort (II) | 32 healthy 10 ACLR and LM radial repair | 21 (42 knees) | Yes: (1) ΔLME between supine (NWB) and standing (FWB) position in both cohorts | Yes: Intra- and interrater reliability for ΔLME using US in all positions for all knees | Yes: For LME in all positions for all knees | 17. (81.0) | 27.6 ± 5.9 | NR | 67 | Fair |
Zeitoun 2021 [55] | Prospective cohort (II) | 45 MT 58 healthy | 103 | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) and standing (FWB) position in both cohorts (2) ΔMME between MT and non-MT groups in all positions | NI | No | 55 (53.4) | 36.82 ± 13 | NR | 69 | Fair |
Falkowski 2022 [34] | Prospective cohort (II) | 36 healthy 20 MD 43 MT | 95 (99 knees) | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) and standing (FWB) positions in both cohorts (2) ΔMME between healthy, MT and MD knees in all positions on US | Yes: Interrater reliability for ΔMME using US in all positions for all knees | Yes: For MME in supine NWB position for all knees | 50 (52.6) | 45 ± 15 | NR | 91 | Excellent |
Oo 2022 [43] | Prospective case series (III) | Patients from RESTORE trial | 89 | NI | Yes: Interrater reliability for ΔMME using US in supine NWB position | Yes: For MME and LME in supine NWB position | 41 (46.1) | 61.5 ± 6.9 | 27.5 ± 6.4 | 74 | Good |
Ishii 2023 [38] | Prospective case series (IV) | Primary OA (K/L 1: 4, 2:17, 3:11) | 32 | Yes: (1) ΔMME between supine (NWB) and dynamic walking (FWB) positions | NI | No | 13 (40.6) | 60.5 ± 9.9 | 24.4 ± 3.2 | 71 | Good |