ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2019
Intra-Observer and Inter-Observer Reliability of Shaft Condylar Angle and Lateral Capitellohumeral Angle: Evaluation Based on Reliability in Different Ages and Levels of Experience.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Open supracondylar humerus fractures in children: Associated injuries and clinical outcomes.Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Comparison of Usability of Sagittal Plane Parameters with Baumann Angle in Radiological Imaging of Supracondylar Humerus Fractures.Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca · 2026Article
- Is long arm splinting sufficient in the nonsurgical follow-up of pediatric Type I and Type IIa supracondylar humerus fractures?Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026Article
- Reliability of Assessing Distal Radius Fractures on a Smartphone Versus PACS.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Computed tomography-based angle measurements of the sagittal capitulum and trochlea position in relation to the humeral shaft.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aims of this paper were: (i) to examine the intra-observer and inter-observer reliability of the shaft-condylar angle (SCA) and the lateral capitellohumeral angle (LCHA); (ii) to study the influence of experience level on the inter-observer and intra-observer reliability; and (iii) to determine the influence of the the age of the patients on reliability.
methodA retrospective cohort study was conducted. The study reviewed 81 elbow radiographs. The patients were aged between 2 and 13 years. All the images taken between 2000 and 2017 were independently measured by a senior pediatric orthopaedic surgeon, a pediatric orthopaedic surgeon, a pediatric orthopaedic fellow, an orthopaedic chief resident, a general practitioner, and a pediatric orthopaedic research assistant. Measurement was performed two times within a 2-week interval. Inexperienced observers (general practitioner and research assistant) were supervised by senior pediatric orthopaedic surgeons for at least 30 radiographs before performing the measurement. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) age 2-13 years; and (ii) no previous elbow fracture. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: elbow radiographs do not show true lateral view. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to calculate the reliability.
resultsThe mean values of SCA and LCHA were 43° and 48°, respectively. For SCA, intra-observer reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.85) for one observer, good (range = 0.73-0.76) for three observers, and moderate (0.59) for one observer. Inter-observer reliability was moderate (0.48, 0.58), whereas the reliability categorized by age group showed excellent agreement (0.88-0.94). For LCHA, intra-observer reliability was excellent (0.84-0.89) for three observers and good (0.66-0.80) for two observers. Inter-observer reliability was moderate (0.44-0.45). Conversely, the reliability classified by age group showed excellent agreement (0.83-0.91).
conclusionIntra-observer reliability for LCHA and SCA were excellent to good for most observers. Inter-observer reliability was moderate for LCHA and SCA. Reliability classified by age group showed excellent to good agreement. Reliability was influenced by the level of experience, especially for non-medical staff.
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.