Diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination versus MRI for meniscal tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors

Rahul Rana, Navjyot Mehan, Rifat Hassan, Yogeshwar Gohil, Anshika Tyagi, Nicola Maffulli

Published in

British medical bulletin. Volume 159. Issue 1. Jul 03, 2026.

Abstract

Meniscal tears are a common cause of knee morbidity and a frequent indication for arthroscopy. Whether clinical examination, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or both should be the first-line diagnostic test remains contested.
We searched PubMed, CINAHL Complete, Medline, and Web of Science for paired-design studies in adults in which every patient underwent both composite clinical examination and MRI, with arthroscopy as the reference standard. Ten studies (1643 knees) met our inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2; estimates were pooled with a random-effects model.
For medial meniscal tears, MRI achieved pooled sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 91%; composite clinical examination achieved 85% sensitivity and 95% specificity. For lateral meniscal tears, MRI yielded 81% sensitivity and 82% specificity; composite clinical examination yielded 75% sensitivity and 93% specificity.
Whether composite clinical examination is interchangeable with MRI as a first-line test; reduced MRI specificity in degenerative meniscal lesions and osteoarthritic knees; and the operator-dependence of clinical examination and the lack of a standardized composite-examination protocol.
Composite clinical examination by an experienced clinician retains diagnostic value alongside MRI. Paired-design synthesis with arthroscopic verification gives less biased estimates of comparative accuracy than unpaired designs.
Standardization of composite clinical examination protocols; consistent reporting of examiner experience; stratification of MRI accuracy by field strength and pulse sequence; and cost-effectiveness evaluation of clinical-examination-first diagnostic pathways.

PMID:
42544509
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 03 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.