. 2019 Feb 18;11(1):21–27. doi: 10.4055/cios.2019.11.1.21

Table 4. Comparative Studies of MRI, MRA, and CTA.

Study	Subject patient (hip)	Mean age (yr)	Comparison	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Accuracy (%)
Byrd and Jones⁵⁾	40 (40)	NR	MRA vs. MRI	66 vs. 25	75 vs. 67	NR
			Labral tear	41 vs. 18	100 vs. 100	NR
			Chondral lesion
Nishii et al.⁴⁾	18 (20)	12–49	CTA vs. MRI	67 vs. 49	89 vs. 89	79 vs. 71
			Chondral lesion1	70 vs. 47	79 vs. 71	87 vs. 80
			Chondral lesion2
Czerny et al.⁶⁾		39	MRA vs. MRI	90 vs. 30	NR	91 vs. 36
Czerny et al.⁶⁾		39	Labral tear
Perdikakis et al.¹¹⁾	10 (14)	43	MRA vs. CTA	100 vs. 15	50 vs. 13	90 vs. 14
			Labral tear	63 vs. 66	33 vs. 40	55 vs. 66
			Chondral lesion
Sundberg et al.⁷⁾	8 (8)	38	MRA vs. MRI	80 vs. 100	33 vs. 33	63 vs. 75
Sundberg et al.⁷⁾	8 (8)	38	Labral tear
Toomayan et al.¹⁷⁾	48 (51)	35	MRA vs. MRI	92 vs. 25	100 vs. 100	NR
Toomayan et al.¹⁷⁾	48 (51)	35	Labral tear
This study	33 (36)	35	CTA vs. MRI	85 vs. 60	90 vs. 80	86 vs. 64
			Labral tear	46 vs. 36	72 vs. 84	64 vs. 69
			Chondral lesion

MRI: magnetic resonance imaging, MRA: magnetic resonance arthrography, CTA: computed tomography arthrography, NR: not reported, Chondral lesion 1: homogeneous or focal signal intensity without surface irregularity, Chondral lesion 2: contour defect.