Skip to main content

Table 1 Study and Patient Characteristicsa

From: Ramp lesions: a systematic review of MRI diagnostic accuracy and treatment efficacy

Author (Year)

Study Period

Design

 

N

Age, yb

Male, %

Focus

Arner (2017) [7]

2013 to 2015

P/NC

 

90

28 ± 10 (14–45)

50.0

D

Chen (2018) [14]

Aug/2010 to Dec/2014

R/C

 

46

26 (18–41)

73.9

T

DePhillipo (2017) [22]

April/2010 to July/2016

P/C

 

301

29.6 ± 12.5 (14–61)

66.0

D

Furumatsu (2014) [26]

July/2009 to Dec/2011

P/C

 

20

19 (15–38)

40.0

T

Gulenc (2019) [28]

2017

P/NC

 

15

26.8 (18–35)

53.3

D/T

Hatayama (2018) [32]

April/2013 to Aug/2017

P/C

 

155

25.3 (13–60)

51.0

D

Keyhani (2017) [36]

2011 to 2014

P/C

 

128

24 (18–48)

83.6

T

Kim (2018) [38]

June/2011 to April/2015

P/C

 

195

31.7 ± 11.7

88.2

D

Kumar (2018) [40]

Jan/2006 to June/2016

R/C

 

178

NR.

NR.

D

Li (2015) [43]

Aug/2011 to Feb/2014

P/C

 

23

NR.

NR.

T

Liu (2017) [45]c

Aug/2008 to April/2012

P/C

(SG)

50

35.6 ± 8.5

76

T

(AG)

41

34.8 ± 9.1

73.2

Malatray (2018) [48]

Oct/2014 to May/2016

P/C

 

56

14.0 ± 1.3 (12–17)

76.8

D

Sonnery-Cottet (2018) [74]

Jan/2013 and Aug/2015

R/C

 

383

27.4 ± 9.2 (14–60)

76.5

T

Thaunat (2016) [80]

Oct/2012 to March/2013

P/C

 

132

26.4 (12–57)

83.3

T

Yang (2017) [85]c

Jan/2010 to Jan/2014

R/C

(SG)

37

35.7 ± 8.5

75.7

T

(AG)

31

34.8 ± 8.1

74.2

Yeo (2018) [86]

Jan/2015 to Sep/2017

R/C

 

78

37.3 (19–52)

82.1

D

  1. aAG abrasion and trephination group, Aug August, D diagnosis, Dec December, Feb February, Jan January, NR not reported, Oct October, P prospective, R retrospective, Sep September, SG meniscal suture group, T treatment, Y years
  2. bAge is expressed as mean ± SD (Range), when available
  3. cLiu et al. [45] and Yang et al. [85] used 2 different cohorts to compare different treatment approaches