ArticleCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie2020
Improved precision of radiographic measurements for distal radius fractures after a technique-teaching tutorial.
Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: For the management of distal radius fractures, surgical decision-making depends on radiographic measurements of indicators including radial inclination (RI), ulnar variance (UV) and radial tilt (RT). Evaluation of the inter- and intrarater reliability of surgeons' measurements of these criteria has been limited. Methods: Twelve physicians were invited to participate in this study. Anonymously, they measured RI, UV and RT on 30 digitally stored radiographs of distal radius fractures on 3 occasions, each at least 1 week apart, using online measuring tools. After taking the third set of measurements, the participants were given a tutorial by the senior author (G.J.) on a single technique to measure all 3 indicators. The participants then took 3 more sets of measurements using only the technique they had been taught. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to evaluate interrater reliability each week. Multiple logistic regression was used to calculate the effect of the tutorial, controlling for week of study along with reader (participant) and patient variance. Results: The ICCs indicated that the participants' measurement precision improved promptly after the tutorial, and this improvement was sustained through subsequent readings. The odds of an "accurate" measurement (within 2° of the senior author's measurements for RI, 1 mm for UV and 4° for RT) was 1.7 times higher for RI, 2.7 times higher for UV and 2.3 times higher for RT after the tutorial; all of these results were statistically significant. Conclusion: Surgeons ought to be familiar with a method to reproducibly measure the indicators used in the published guidelines for surgical intervention. The tutorial on a single standardized technique for online measurement of RI, UV and RT in distal radius fractures improved measurement precision.
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.