ArticleJournal of children's orthopaedics2019
Inter-rater reliability of the radiographic assessment of simple bone cysts.
Article in Journal of children's orthopaedics, 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.
- Unicameral Bone Cyst: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Follow-Up Methods, a Multicenter Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Uncommon Bone Injuries in Soccer Players.Journal of human kinetics · 2021Article
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
purposeTo develop and evaluate the reliability of an explicit set of parameters and criteria for simple bone cysts (SBCs) and evaluate the reliability of single versus serial chronological reading methods.
methodsRadiographic criteria were developed based on the literature and expert consensus. A single anteroposterior/lateral radiograph from 32 subjects with SBC were evaluated by three radiologists. A second reading was then conducted using revised criteria including a visual schematic. In the third reading the same images were assessed but radiologists had access to images from two additional time points. Inter-rater reliability was assessed after each reading using kappa (κ) and percentage agreement for categorical and binary parameters and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for continuous parameters.
resultsParameters that were revised with more explicit definitions including the visual schematic demonstrated consistent or improved inter-rater reliability with the exception of continuous cortical rim present and cyst location in the metaphysis and mid-diaphysis. Cortical rim displayed only slight reliability throughout (κ= -0.008 to 0.16). All other categorical parameters had a percentage agreement above 0.8 or a moderate (κ= 0.41 to 0.60), substantial (κ = 0.61 to 0.80) or almost perfect inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.81 to 1.0) in at least one reading. All continuous parameters demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC > 0.75) in at least one reading with the exception of scalloping (ICC = 0.37 to 0.70). Inter-rater reliability values did not indicate an obviously superior method of assessment between single and serial chronological readings.
conclusionExplicit criteria for SBC parameters used in their assessment demonstrated improved and substantial inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability did not differ between single and serial chronological readings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not Applicable.
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.