Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31119416›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2019

Are semi-automated software program designed for adults accurate for the identification of vertebral fractures in children?

Fawaz F Alqahtani, Fabrizio Messina, Amaka C Offiah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. [Artificial intelligence in image evaluation and diagnosis].Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde : Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Kinderheilkunde · 2021
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fawaz F AlqahtaniAcademic Unit of Child Health, Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Medical School, University of Sheffield, Street Building, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TH, UK. ffmalqahtani1@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1494-0303
Fabrizio MessinaSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Amaka C OffiahAcademic Unit of Child Health, Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Medical School, University of Sheffield, Street Building, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TH, UK.

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0110-21240
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess whether diagnostic accuracy of morphometric vertebral fracture (VF) diagnosis in children can be improved using AVERT™ (a 33-point semi-automated program developed for VF diagnosis in adults) compared with SpineAnalyzer™ (a 6-point program), which has previously been shown to be of insufficient accuracy. MATERIALS AND

methodsLateral spine radiographs (XR) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans of 50 children and young people were analysed by two observers using two different programs (AVERT™ and SpineAnalyzer™). Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, false-negative (FN) and false-positive rates (FP)) was calculated by comparing with a previously established consensus arrived at by three experienced paediatric musculoskeletal radiologists, using a simplified algorithm-based qualitative scoring system. Observer agreement was calculated using Cohen's kappa.

resultsFor XR, overall sensitivity, specificity, FP and FN rates using AVERT™ were 36%, 95%, 5% and 64% respectively and 26%, 98%, 2% and 75% respectively, using SpineAnalyzer™. For DXA, overall sensitivity, specificity, FP and FN rates using AVERT™ were 41%, 91%, 9% and 59% respectively and 31%, 96%, 4% and 69% respectively, using SpineAnalyzer. Reliability (kappa) ranged from 0.34 to 0.37 (95%CI, 0.26-0.46) for AVERT™ and from 0.26 to 0.31 (95%CI, 0.16-0.44) for SpineAnalyzer™. Inter- and intra-observer agreement ranged from 0.41 to 0.47 for AVERT™ and from 0.50 to 0.79 for SpineAnalyzer™.

conclusionAVERT™ has slightly higher accuracy but lower observer reliability for the representation of vertebral morphometry in children when compared with SpineAnalyzer™. However, neither software program is satisfactorily reliable for VF diagnosis in children. KEY POINTS: • SpineAnalyzer™ and AVERT™ have low diagnostic accuracy and observer agreement when compared to three paediatric radiologists' readings for the diagnosis of vertebral fractures (VF) in children. • Neither AVERT™ nor SpineAnalyzer™ is satisfactorily reliable for VF diagnosis in children. • Development of specific paediatric software and normative values (incorporating age-related physiological variation in children) is required.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonAdolescentAlgorithmsChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleObserver VariationRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySpinal FracturesSpinal InjuriesSpineChildrenDXA scanOsteoporosisPaediatricVertebral

Identifiers

PMID31119416
PMCPMC6828619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.