Table 2 Characteristics of included studies
From: Role of magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasound for detection of plantar plate tear
Studies | Number of samples | Index text | Age | Gender | Parameter of index text | Reference standard | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male | Female | ||||||
Carlson et al. 2013 [16] | 8 | US | 51.9(41–63) | 0 | 8 | Acuson Sequoia 512 Ultrasound Scanner (Siemens) | Surgery |
Gregg et al. 2006 [11] | 50 | MRI and US | 57(18–74) | N/A | N/A | MRI: 1.5-T MRI scanner (Signa Hi Speed Plus, General Electric Medical Systems) US: Antares scanner, (Siemens)with a high-frequency linear array probe (13-5VF; 11.4 MHz; dynamic range 60 dB; one focal zone) | Surgery |
Klein et al. 2012 [10] | 52 | MRI | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0.3Â T extremity coil | Surgery |
Klein et al. 2013 [17] | 50 | US | N/A | N/A | N/A | Sonosite M-turbo ultrasound and a linear 15-6 MHz transducer | Surgery |
Nery et al. 2013 [18] | 36 | MRI | 61(43–75) | 8 | 20 | 1.0 to 1.5 T | Arthroscopy |
Sung et al. 2012 [19] | 45 | MRI | 52.1(28–70) | 3 | 38 | 0.31 T (O-Scan Extremity MRI, Biosound Esaote, Indianapolis, IN) | Surgery |
Yao et al. 1996 [20] | 5 | MRI | N/A | N/A | N/A | 1.5Â T (General Electric, Signa, Milwaukee, WI) | Surgery |