ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Clivopalate angle: a new diagnostic method for basilar invagination at magnetic resonance imaging.
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 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.
- Radiological Changes After Craniovertebral Junction Stabilization: Evaluation of Established Measurements and Novel Cranial and Caudal Anterior Atlantodental Interval Parameters.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A review and commentary on congenital anomalies of the craniocervical junction.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Surgical outcomes of basilar invagination type B without atlantoaxial dislocation through simple posterior fossa decompression: a retrospective study of 18 cases.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the diagnostic value of clivopalate angle (CPA) for basilar invagination (BI) at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsIn this retrospective case-control study, CPA, clivodens angle (CDA), and clivoaxial angle (CXA) were measured on midsagittal MR images from 112 patients with BI (22 men; mean age, 43.9 years ± 13.1 years; range, 21-79 years) and 200 control subjects (57 men; mean age, 47.1 years ± 13.3 years; range, 20-80 years). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), linear regression, Mann-Whitney U test, binary logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used for statistical analysis.
resultsClivopalate angle showed better inter-observer agreement (ICC = 0.951) than CXA (0.867) or CDA (0.853). CPA significantly correlated with CXA (R = 0.811, p < 0.001) and CDA (R = 0.716, p < 0.001). Patients with BI had a significantly smaller CPA (45.9° ± 9.9°) than control subjects (61.9° ± 6.2°) (p < 0.001). With the optimal cutoff value of 53.5°, CPA had a sensitivity of 0.839 (94/112) and a specificity of 0.915 (183/200). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.937 (95% CI, 0.911-0.963) for CPA, which was similar to that of CXA (AUC, 0.957; 95% CI, 0.936-0.978) or CDA (AUC, 0.925; 95% CI, 0.892-0.957). The combination of CPA and CDA or CXA showed a higher diagnostic value than CDA or CXA alone.
conclusionsThe diagnostic performance of CPA was similar to that of CXA or CDA, but CPA might be more reliable in evaluation of BI. CPA provided complementary information to CXA and CDA. KEY POINTS: • Clivopalate angle has a high diagnostic value for basilar invagination. • Clivopalate angle demonstrates high inter-reader agreement than does clivoaxial angle or clivodens angle. • Clivopalate angle provides complementary information to clivoaxial angle and clivodens angle.
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.