ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2020
What Are the Interobserver and Intraobserver Variability of Gap and Stepoff Measurements in Acetabular Fractures?
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interactive AI annotation of medical images in a virtual reality environment.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Navigation and intraoperative imaging in pelvic and acetabular trauma.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2025Article
- Long-term patient-reported outcomes after nonoperative treatment of distal radial fractures: what CT-based gaps and step-offs can be accepted?European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Article
- Does the Sagittal Radiographic Morphology of Subtalar Joint Affect the Alignment of Foot?Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Lightweight preprocessing and template matching facilitate streamlined ischemic myocardial scar classification.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
- Reliability and agreement of root length measurements during orthodontic treatment in images from different CBCT machines using multiplanar reconstruction.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2024Article
- Validity and Reliability of Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Detecting Moderate- or High-Grade Carotid Atherosclerosis in an Outpatient Department.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Pilot Study: The Effects of Slice Parameters and the Interobserver Measurement Variability in Computed Tomographic Hepatic Volumetry in Dogs without Hepatic Disease.Veterinary sciences · 2023Article
- Quantitative Three-Dimensional Measurements of Acetabular Fracture Displacement Could Be Predictive for Native Hip Survivorship.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Does 3D-Assisted Acetabular Fracture Surgery Improve Surgical Outcome and Physical Functioning?-A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- The accuracy of gap and step-off measurements in acetabular fracture treatment.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Feasibility of Imaging-Based 3-Dimensional Models to Design Patient-Specific Osteosynthesis Plates and Drilling Guides.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- CORR Insights®: What Are the Interobserver and Intraobserver Variability of Gap and Stepoff Measurements in Acetabular Fractures?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGap and stepoff values in the treatment of acetabular fractures are correlated with clinical outcomes. However, the interobserver and intraobserver variability of gap and stepoff measurements for all imaging modalities in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phase of treatment is unknown. Recently, a standardized CT-based measurement method was introduced, which provided the opportunity to assess the level of variability. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) In patients with acetabular fractures, what is the interobserver variability in the measurement of the fracture gaps and articular stepoffs determined by each observer to be the maximum one in the weightbearing dome, as measured on pre- and postoperative pelvic radiographs, intraoperative fluoroscopy, and pre- and postoperative CT scans? (2) What is the intraobserver variability in these measurements?
methodsSixty patients with a complete subset of pre-, intra- and postoperative high-quality images (CT slices of < 2 mm), representing a variety of fracture types with small and large gaps and/or stepoffs, were included. A total of 196 patients with nonoperative treatment (n = 117), inadequate available imaging (n = 60), skeletal immaturity (n = 16), bilateral fractures (n = 2) or a primary THA (n = 1) were excluded. The maximum gap and stepoff values in the weightbearing dome were digitally measured on pelvic radiographs and CT images by five independent observers. Observers were free to decide which gap and/or stepoff they considered the maximum and then measure these before and after surgery. The observers were two trauma surgeons with more than 5 years of experience in pelvic surgery, two trauma surgeons with less than 5 years of experience in pelvic surgery, and one surgical resident. Additionally, the final intraoperative fluoroscopy images were assessed for the presence of a gap or stepoff in the weightbearing dome. All observers used the same standardized measurement technique and each observer measured the first five patients together with the responsible researcher. For 10 randomly selected patients, all measurements were repeated by all observers, at least 2 weeks after the initial measurements. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for pelvic radiographs and CT images and the kappa value for intraoperative fluoroscopy measurements were calculated to determine the inter- and intraobserver variability. Interobserver variability was defined as the difference in the measurements between observers. Intraobserver variability was defined as the difference in repeated measurements by the same observer.
resultsPreoperatively, the interobserver ICC was 0.4 (gap and stepoff) on radiographs and 0.4 (gap) and 0.3 (stepoff) on CT images. The observers agreed on the indication for surgery in 40% (gap) and 30% (stepoff) on pelvic radiographs. For CT scans the observers agreed in 95% (gap) and 70% (stepoff) of images. Postoperatively, the interobserver ICC was 0.4 (gap) and 0.2 (stepoff) on radiographs. The observers agreed on whether the reduction was acceptable or not in 60% (gap) and 40% (stepoff). On CT images the ICC was 0.3 (gap) and 0.4 (stepoff). The observers agreed on whether the reduction was acceptable in 35% (gap) and 38% (stepoff). The preoperative intraobserver ICC was 0.6 (gap and stepoff) on pelvic radiographs and 0.4 (gap) and 0.6 (stepoff) for CT scans. Postoperatively, the intraobserver ICC was 0.7 (gap) and 0.1 (stepoff) on pelvic radiographs. On CT the intraobserver ICC was 0.5 (gap) and 0.3 (stepoff). There was no agreement between the observers on the presence of a gap or stepoff on intraoperative fluoroscopy images (kappa -0.1 to 0.2).
conclusionsWe found an insufficient interobserver and intraobserver agreement on measuring gaps and stepoffs for supporting clinical decisions in acetabular fracture surgery. If observers cannot agree on the size of the gap and stepoff, it will be challenging to decide when to perform surgery and study the results of acetabular fracture surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.
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.