ArticleSkeletal radiology2014
Carpal angles as measured on CT and MRI: can we simply translate radiographic measurements?
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of computer-aided and manual measurements in the evaluation of carpal alignment.The Journal of hand surgery, European volume · 2024Article
- Radio-luno-triquetral bone-ligament transfer as an additional stabilizer in scapholunate-instability.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the performance of three tenodesis techniques for the treatment of scapholunate instability: flexion-extension and radial-ulnar deviation.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the reliability of carpal angles measured on CT and MRI compared to radiography and assess if these measurements are interchangeable. MATERIALS AND
methodsOur institutional ethic research committee approved this study. For this retrospective study, two independent observers measured the scapholunate (SL), capitolunate (CL), radiolunate (RL), and radioscaphoid (RS) angles on 21 sets of exams, with each set including a radiograph, CT, and MRI of the same wrist. Inter- and intra-observer agreements were evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Linear mixed models and two-way contingency tables were used to determine if the angles measured on cross-sectional modalities were significantly different from those obtained on radiography.
resultsInter-observer agreement was strong (ICC >0.8) for all angles, except for the RL angle measured on MRI (ICC 0.68). Intra-observer agreement was also strong for all angles, except for the CL angle measured on CT (ICC 0.66). SL angles measured on CT and MRI were not statistically different from those measured on radiographs (p = 0.37 and 0.36, respectively), unlike CL, RL, and RS angles (p < 0.05). Accuracy between modalities varied between 76 and 86% for the SL angle and ranged between 43 and 76% for the other angles.
conclusionsCL, RL, and RS angles showed large intermodality variability. Therefore, their measurements on CT or MRI could potentially lead to miscategorization. Conversely, our data showing no significant difference between modalities, SL angle could be measured on CT and MRI to assess wrist instability with a lower risk of error.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.