ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Reliability of 2D and 3D ultrasound for infant hip dysplasia in the hands of novice users.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence-assisted infant hip ultrasound interpretation for developmental dysplasia of the hip: systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatric radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence to Detect Developmental Dysplasia of Hip: A Systematic Review.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2025Pooled it
- Explainable Quality Assessment and Measurement from Real-World Hip Ultrasound Cine Sweeps.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Operator Variability and Validation of an AI-Assisted α-Angle Measurement System for DDH Using a Phantom Model.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Integrating web-based and objective structured clinical examination training programs for nurses on ultrasound hip screening during neonatal and infant home visits: a case study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Clinical Evaluation of an Electronic Guidance System for Optimizing the Ultrasound Screening for Developmental Hip Dysplasia in Newborns.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- What is the place of ultrasound in MSK imaging?Skeletal radiology · 2024Article
- Ultrasonographic evaluation of infant hips in the Pavlik harness compared to body-worn commercial baby carriers.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2023Article
- Normal variation of infant hip development : patterns revealed by 3D ultrasound.Bone & joint open · 2022Article
- The application of artificial intelligence in the sonography profession: Professional and educational considerations.Ultrasound (Leeds, England) · 2022Article
- Impact of scan quality on AI assessment of hip dysplasia ultrasound.Journal of ultrasound · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence to Automatically Assess Scan Quality in Hip Ultrasound.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Narrative Review on the Role of Imaging in DDH.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2021Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasonography Method of Graf in the detection of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2021Review
- Using 3-dimensional ultrasound islice technology for the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDevelopmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) diagnosis by two-dimensional ultrasound (2DUS) can have poor inter-rater reliability. 3D ultrasound (3DUS) may be more reliably performed, particularly by novice users. We compared intra- and inter-rater reliability between expert and novice operators performing 2DUS and 3DUS for DDH. MATERIALS AND
methodsInfants with suspected DDH were assessed with 2DUS and 3DUS. Novice operators had 1.5 h of training and Experts had 5-15 years' experience. Images included two 2DUS static and two 3DUS sweep images per operator. Image quality was assessed by 5-point system (yes/no: full femoral head; full acetabular roof; horizontal iliac wing; os ischium; absent motion/artifact). 2DUS indices (alpha angle, coverage) were measured centrally by a blinded reader with 2 years DDH US experience. 3DUS was post-processed by semi-automated custom software generating acetabular surface models, indices and estimated probability of DDH. Gold-standard diagnosis of each hip as normal, borderline or dysplastic was based on radiologist review of expert 2DUS.
resultsThirty infants, mean age 10.8 weeks were enrolled. Quality scores were 2.7±1.2 Novice versus 4.9±0.3 Expert for 2DUS (p = 0.04), and 4.2±1.0 Novice versus 4.9±0.3 Expert for 3DUS (p = 0.99). Inter-rater reliability was poor for 2DUS (ICC=0.10 for alpha angle, 0.04 for acetabular coverage) and moderate to high for 3DUS (ICC=0.73-0.83 for alpha angle, 0.55 for acetabular coverage). Intra-rater reliability and diagnostic accuracy was higher for 3DUS than 2DUS.
conclusionNovice operators can perform 3DUS for DDH with reliability and accuracy approaching expert sonographers. Novices perform 2DUS with poor reliability and accuracy. KEY POINTS: • Novice/expert inter-rater reliability improved from poor with 2DUS to moderate/high with 3DUS. • Novice operators using 3DUS correctly classified 57/58 (98%) of infant hips. • DDH can be reliably assessed by novice operators using 3DUS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30159618What 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.