ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2017
Qualitative Evaluation of Digital Hand X-rays Is Not a Reliable Method to Assess Bone Mineral Density.
Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bone Mineral Density and Content among Iranian Elite Male Athletes in Different Sports.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2023Article
- Effect of Strength Training Protocol on Bone Mineral Density for Postmenopausal Women with Osteopenia/Osteoporosis Assessed by Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA).Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- An Evaluation of Digital Imaging Studies in an Outpatient Orthopedic Setting.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2019Article
- Platelet/lymphocyte ratio is an independent predictor for osteoporosis.Saudi medical journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe gold standard for evaluating bone mineral density is dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Prior studies have shown poor reliability using analog wrist X-rays in diagnosing osteoporosis. Our goal was to investigate if there was improved diagnostic value to visual assessment of digital hand X-rays in osteoporosis screening. We hypothesized that similar to analog counterparts, digital hand X-rays have poor correlation and reliability in determining bone mineral density (BMD) relative to DEXA.
methodsWe prospectively evaluated female patients older than 65 years who presented to our hand clinic with digital hand and wrist X-rays as part of their evaluation over six months. Patients who had a fracture and were without DEXA scans within the past two years were excluded. Five fellowship-trained hand surgeons, blinded to DEXA T-scores, evaluated the x-rays over two assessments separated by four weeks and classified them as osteoporotic, osteopenic, or normal BMD. Accuracy relative to DEXA T-score, interobserver and intraobserver rates were calculated.
resultsThirty four patients met the inclusion criteria and a total of 340 x-rays reviews were performed. The assessments were correct in 169 cases (49%) as compared to the DEXA T-scores. A mean weighted kappa coefficient of agreement between observers was 0.29 (range 0.02-0.41) reflecting a fair agreement. The first and second assessment for all five physicians was 0.46 (range 0.19-0.78) reflecting a moderate agreement. Grouping osteoporosis and osteopenia together compared to normal, the accuracy, interobserver and intraobserver rates increased to 63%, 0.42 and 0.54 respectively.
conclusionAbnormally low BMD is a common occurrence in patients treated for upper extremity disorders. There is poor accuracy relative to DEXA scan and only fair agreement in diagnosing osteoporosis using visual assessments of digital x-rays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28271081PMC5339348W2552315257What 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.