IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0326339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diagnosis of knee meniscal injuries using artificial intelligence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance

Author

Listed:
  • Soheil Mohammadi
  • Ali Jahanshahi
  • Mohammad Shahrabi Farahani
  • Mohammad Amin Salehi
  • Negin Frounchi
  • Ali Guermazi

Abstract

Aim of the study: The aim was to systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to estimate the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in detecting meniscal injuries. Materials and methods: A systematic search was performed in the Scopus, PubMed, EBSCO, Cinahl, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Cochrane Central databases on July, 2024. The included studies’ reporting quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and the Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), respectively. Also, a meta-analysis was done using contingency tables to estimate diagnostic performance metrics (sensitivity and specificity), and a meta-regression analysis was performed to investigate the effect of the following variables on the main outcome: imaging view, data augmentation and transfer learning usage, and presence of meniscal tear in the injury, with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and a P-value of 0.05 as a threshold for significance. Results: Among 28 included studies, 92 contingency tables were extracted from 15 studies. The reference standard of the studies were mostly expert radiologists, orthopedics, or surgical reports. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for AI algorithms on internal validation were 81% (95% CI: 78, 85), and 78% (95% CI: 72, 83), and for clinicians on internal validation were 85% (95% CI: 76, 91), and 88% (95% CI: 83, 92), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for studies validating algorithms with an external test set were 82% (95% CI: 74, 88), and 88% (95% CI: 84, 91), respectively. Conclusion: The results of this study imply the lower diagnostic performance of AI-based algorithms in knee meniscal injuries compared with clinicians.

Suggested Citation

  • Soheil Mohammadi & Ali Jahanshahi & Mohammad Shahrabi Farahani & Mohammad Amin Salehi & Negin Frounchi & Ali Guermazi, 2025. "Diagnosis of knee meniscal injuries using artificial intelligence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(6), pages 1-18, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0326339
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0326339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0326339
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0326339&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0326339?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger M. Harbord & Penny Whiting, 2009. "metandi: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 9(2), pages 211-229, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amin Jan & Maran Marimuthu & Muhammad Kashif Shad & Haseeb ur-Rehman & Muhammad Zahid & Ahmad Ali Jan, 2019. "Bankruptcy profile of the Islamic and conventional banks in Malaysia: a post-crisis period analysis," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 67-87, February.
    2. Ian R. White, 2011. "Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: Updates to mvmeta," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 11(2), pages 255-270, June.
    3. Garifallia Sakellariou & Carlo Alberto Scirè & Antonella Zambon & Roberto Caporali & Carlomaurizio Montecucco, 2013. "Performance of the 2010 Classification Criteria for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Literature Review and a Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-10, February.
    4. Bruno Roza da Costa & Anne Wilhelmina Saskia Rutjes & Angelico Mendy & Rosalie Freund-Heritage & Edgar Ramos Vieira, 2012. "Can Falls Risk Prediction Tools Correctly Identify Fall-Prone Elderly Rehabilitation Inpatients? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-8, July.
    5. Samuel N. Frempong & Andrew J. Sutton & Clare Davenport & Pelham Barton, 2020. "Early Economic Evaluation to Identify the Necessary Test Characteristics of a New Typhoid Test to be Cost Effective in Ghana," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 143-157, March.
    6. Lütjens, Henk & Eisenbeiss, Maik & Fiedler, Maximilian & Bijmolt, Tammo, 2022. "Determinants of consumers’ attitudes towards digital advertising – A meta-analytic comparison across time and touchpoints," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 445-466.
    7. Lisa A Waddell & Judy Greig & Mariola Mascarenhas & Shannon Harding & Robbin Lindsay & Nicholas Ogden, 2016. "The Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests for Lyme Disease in Humans, A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of North American Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-23, December.
    8. repec:plo:pone00:0111727 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0326339. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.