ArticleGeriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation2018
The Circle-Fit Method Helps Make Reliable Cortical Thickness Measurements Regardless of Humeral Length.
Article in Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough proximal humerus strength/quality can be assessed using cortical thickness measurements (eg, cortical index), there is no agreement where to make them. Tingart and coworkers used measurements where the proximal endosteum becomes parallel, while Mather and coworkers used measurements where the periosteum becomes parallel. The new circle-fit method (CFM) makes 2 metaphyseal (M1-M2) and 6 diaphyseal (D1-D6) measurements referenced from humeral head diameter (HHD). However, it is unknown whether these locations correlate to humeral length (HL). Accordingly, we asked: (1) Does HHD, Tingart distance, and Mather distance correlate with HL? (2) What is the location of HHD, Tingart distance, and Mather distance as a percentage of HL? and (3) Which CFM D1-D6 locations correlate with Tingart and Mather distances? MATERIALS AND
methodsMeasurements made on cortical thickness (CT) scout views of 19 humeri (ages: 16-73 years) included HHD, distances from the superior aspect of the humerus to proximal Tingart and Mather locations, and HL.
resultsIntraclass correlation was excellent for CFM-HHD, poor for Tingart, and moderate for Mather. The CFM-HHD had a stronger correlation to HL than Tingart and Mather. Mean HHD was 15.5% (0.9%) of HL while Tingart was 27.0% (4.1%) and Mather was 23.2% (3.8%). Tingart distance corresponded to D2/D3 CFM locations while the Mather distance was similar to D1/D2. DISCUSSION: The CFM reliably correlates with HL and provides a stronger correlation and less variance between specimens than the Tingart or Mather Methods.
conclusionsBecause the CFM produces reliable percent of HL locations, it should be used to define locations for obtaining biomechanically relevant CT measurements such as cortical index. Stronger correlations of these CFM-based measurements with proximal humerus strength will be important for developing advanced algorithms for fracture treatment.
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.