ArticleEuropean radiology2018
A simple method for bone age assessment: the capitohamate planimetry.
Article in European radiology, 2018. 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.
- Observational
- Comparison of classical methods for bone age determination with Capitohamate planimetry on wrist X-rays.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Forensic age estimation in living adolescents with CT imaging of the clavicula-impact of low-dose scanning on readers' confidence.European radiology · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine if the capitohamate (CH) planimetry could be a reliable indicator of bone age, and to compare it with Greulich-Pyle (GP) method.
methodsThis retrospective study included 391 children (age, 1-180 months). Two reviewers manually measured the areas of the capitate and hamate on plain radiographs. CH planimetry was defined as the measurement of the sum of areas of the capitate and hamate. Two reviewers independently applied the CH planimetry and GP methods in 109 children whose heights were at the 50th percentile of the growth chart.
resultsThere was a strong positive correlation between chronological age and CH planimetry measurement (right, r = 0.9702; left, r = 0.9709). There was no significant difference in accuracy between CH planimetry (84.39-84.46 %) and the GP method (85.15-87.66 %) (p ≥ 0.0867). The interobserver reproducibility of CH planimetry (precision, 4.42 %; 95 % limits of agreement [LOA], -10.5 to 13.4 months) was greater than that of the GP method (precision, 8.45 %; LOA, -29.5 to 21.1 months).
conclusionsCH planimetry may be a reliable method for bone age assessment. KEY POINTS: • Bone age assessment is important in the work-up of paediatric endocrine disorders. • Radiography of the left hand is widely used to estimate bone age. • Capitatohamate planimetry is a reliable and reproducible method for assessing bone age.
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.