ArticleSkeletal radiology2019
3D hindfoot alignment measurements based on low-dose biplanar radiographs: a clinical feasibility study.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploratory Analysis of the Effect of Foot Deformities on Hindfoot Alignment Measurement: A Comparison of Second Ray, Ankle Mortise, and Forefoot Alignment on Weight-bearing CT.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Automatic landmark detection and mapping for 2D/3D registration with BoneNet.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo test a 3D-hindfoot alignment (HA) measurement technique based on low-dose biplanar radiographs (BPRs) in a clinical setting and compare the results with 2D-HA measurements on long axial view radiographs (LARs). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective study was approved by the local institutional review board. HA measurements on 3D-BPR and 2D-LAR of 50 patients (29 female; mean age 47 ± 16.6 years) were compared (positive values = valgus; negative values = varus). Two independent musculoskeletal radiologists (readers 1 and 2) performed 3D-HA measurements on BPR using a custom-made MATLAB code and measured HA on LAR during two separate readout sessions. Descriptive statistics and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated, and Bland-Altman plots were used for intermethod comparison.
resultsUsing BPRs, HA was 0.8° ± 9.°1 (range, -20.2 to 20.0) for reader 1, and 0.7° ± 9.5° (range, -21.2 to 18.3) for reader 2. HA on LARs was -2.0 ° ± 7.0° (range, -27.0° to 11.1°) for reader 1 and - 1.7° ± 7.0° (range, -24.1° to 14.3°) for reader 2. Interreader agreement for measurements was excellent, both for BPRs (ICC = 0.992; 95% CI:0.986-0.995) and LAR measurements (ICC = 0.962; 95% CI:0.932-0.978). Mean difference between the two methods was -2.43° (range, -29.4° to 25.6°) for reader 1 and -2.6° (range,-28.7° to 30.2°) for reader 2. On Bland-Altman plots, three measurements of reader 1 and six measurements of reader 2 were outside of the ±1.96 SD interval.
conclusionHindfoot alignment measurements on 3D-BPR have an excellent interreader agreement in a clinical setting. Large measurement errors can occur in individual patients using 2D-LAR alone. Therefore, we suggest using 3D-BPR measurements in daily routine for the assessment of HA, which are independent of rotational foot malpositioning.
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.