Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28281784›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017

Image quality of cone beam computed tomography for evaluation of extremity fractures in the presence of metal hardware: visual grading characteristics analysis.

Greg M Osgood, Gaurav K Thawait, Nima Hafezi-Nejad, Delaram Shakoor, Adam Shaner, John Yorkston, Wojciech B Zbijewski, Jeffrey H Siewerdsen, Shadpour Demehri

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Flat-panel conebeam CT in the clinic: history and current state.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Greg M Osgood1 Department of Orthopedics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Gaurav K Thawait2 Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Nima Hafezi-Nejad2 Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Delaram Shakoor2 Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Adam Shaner1 Department of Orthopedics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
John Yorkston3 Carestream Health Inc., Rochester, NY, USA.
Wojciech B Zbijewski4 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jeffrey H Siewerdsen4 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Shadpour Demehri2 Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USJohns Hopkins Hospital · USCarestream (United States) · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate image quality and interobserver reliability of a novel cone-beam CT (CBCT) scanner in comparison with plain radiography for assessment of fracture healing in the presence of metal hardware.

methodsIn this prospective institutional review board-approved Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996-complaint study, written informed consent was obtained from 27 patients (10 females and 17 males; mean age 44 years, age range 21-83 years) with either upper or lower extremity fractures, and with metal hardware, who underwent CBCT scans and had a clinical radiograph of the affected part. Images were assessed by two independent observers for quality and interobserver reliability for seven visualization tasks. Visual grading characteristic (VGC) curve analysis determined the differences in image quality between CBCT and plain radiography. Interobserver agreement was calculated using Pearson's correlation coefficient.

resultsVGC results displayed preference of CBCT images to plain radiographs in terms of visualizing (1) cortical and (2) trabecular bones; (3) fracture line; (4) callus formation; (5) bridging ossification; and (6) screw thread-bone interface and its inferiority to plain radiograph in the visualization of (7) large metallic side plate contour with strong interobserver correlation (p-value < 0.05), except for visualizing large metallic side plate contour.

conclusionFor evaluation of fracture healing in the presence of metal hardware, CBCT image quality is preferable to plain radiograph for all visualization tasks, except for large metallic side plate contours. Advances in knowledge: CBCT has the potential to be a good diagnostic alternative to plain radiographs in evaluation of fracture healing in the presence of metal hardware.

Indexed as

Internal FixatorsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCone-Beam Computed TomographyExtremitiesFemaleFractures, BoneHumansMaleMetalsMiddle AgedObserver VariationProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultMetals

Identifiers

PMID28281784
PMCPMC5605098
OpenAlexW2593250392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.