ArticleShoulder & elbow2018
Interobserver reliability of radiographic assessment after radial head arthroplasty.
Article in Shoulder & elbow, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient- and Procedure-Specific Variables Associated With Removal or Revision of Radial Head Arthroplasty.The Permanente journal · 2022Article
- Radial head fractures.Shoulder & elbow · 2020Review
- Methodological issues on interobserver reliability of radiographic assessment after radial head arthroplasty.Shoulder & elbow · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiographs are part of routine clinical care after radial head arthroplasty (RHA). Therefore, the aim of this diagnostic study was to assess the interobserver reliability of radiographic assessment following RHA.
methodsAnteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs of 24 consecutive patients who underwent press-fit bipolar RHA were evaluated with respect to 14 parameters by 14 orthopaedic surgeons specializing in the elbow: shaft loosening (AP, lateral), subcollar bone resorption, nonbridging heterotopic ossification, capitellar erosion, capitellar osteopenia, implant size, ulnohumeral joint gapping, ulnohumeral joint degeneration, proximal radio-ulnar joint congruency, stem size, stem positioning (AP, lateral) and component dissociation or polyethylene wear of the head with increased angulation. Observer agreement was evaluated using the multirater kappa (κ) measure.
resultsNine of 14 parameters had poor interobserver agreement [κ = 0.0 to 0.20, confidence interval (CI) = 0.0 to 0.31). Four parameters had fair agreement: subcollar bone resorption (κ = 0.27, CI = 0.12 to 0.40), capitellar erosion (κ = 0.30, CI = 0.20 to 0.40), ulnohumeral joint degeneration (κ = 0.35, CI = 0.22 to 0.51) and stem positioning in AP view (κ = 0.24, CI = 0.14 to 0.36). One parameter had moderate agreement: nonbridging heterotopic ossification (κ = 0.47, CI = 0.31 to 0.64).
conclusionsThe overall interobserver reliability of radiographic assessment following press-fit bipolar RHA was poor among experienced elbow surgeons. Therefore, radiographic evaluation after RHA should be interpreted with caution when making treatment decisions.
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.