DOI:10.2214/AJR.06.1599
AJR 2007; 188:W575
© American Roentgen Ray Society
Reply
Arthur De Smet and
Michael Tuite
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Madison,
WI
WEB—This is a Web exclusive article.
We appreciate the careful reading of our article
[1] by Drs. Lee, Tzeng, and Lin
and welcome the opportunity to further discuss our findings. As they noted
[2], we indicated in Table 2 of
our article that we excluded the possibly torn cases in the statistical
calculations for menisci diagnosed as torn using the two-slice-touch rule
[1].
We presented the data in this manner to emphasize how we view this
category—as two different diagnostic groups and not as two different
criteria for diagnosing a tear. Thus, a meniscal tear is much more likely to
be present if there are two or more abnormal MR images than if there is only
one. For this reason, we presented the table to summarize the statistics in
two groups: those with two or more abnormal images and those with one or more
abnormal images.
However, we certainly agree that if one considers the criteria for a tear
to be first one or more abnormal images and then two or more abnormal images,
then the statistics as calculated in their letter
[2] are correct. It is
important for readers to note that the magnitude of the differences between
our calculations and theirs as to sensitivity, specificity, and negative
predictive value are small, with no change in the statistically significant
differences.
References
- De Smet AA, Tuite MJ. Use of the "two-slice-touch" rule
for the MRI diagnosis of meniscal tears. AJR2006; 187:911
–914[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Lee C-H, Tzeng C-Y, Lin Y-M. Specificity gains at the expense of
sensitivity and vice versa (letter). AJR2007; 188:W574[Free Full Text]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
Top
References
