ReviewDer Radiologe2019
[Osteoarthritis classifications : Modification proposal for the criteria of Kellgren and Vallotton].
Review in Der Radiologe, 2019. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn imaging diagnostics, classification schemes are very common. As far as osteoarthritis is concerned, the Kellgren classification is the most popular. However, the Kellgren classification, which has been used for more than 50 years, is based on nonspecific criteria; thus, high interobserver variability has been reported. In addition, the Kellgren classifications have not been coordinated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based classification schemes, e.g., Vallotton.
aimIn this paper, we present some modifications concerning the criteria for both the Kellgren classification and its comparison with the MRI-based Vallotton classification.
methodsThe current surgical and imaging classifications and the precision of the nomenclature are analyzed. X‑ray and MRI findings are compared.
resultsSuggestions for both a modification of the Kellgren classification as far as the criteria are concerned and a hierarchy (ranking) of X‑ray and MRI findings to make clinical decisions more valuable are proposed.
conclusionThese proposed modifications (Kellgren and ranking) would be helpful for routine reporting and allow for better interobserver reliability, in particular for special reports (e.g. consultations, expert opinions, advanced diagnostics).
Indexed as
Identifiers
31463538What 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.