Observational studyMedicine2020
Relationship between hand and wrist bone age assessment methods.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Curve type, flexibility, correction, and rotation are predictors of curve progression in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis undergoing conservative treatment : a systematic review.The bone & joint journal · 2022Pooled it
- Short-term whole-body vibration in adolescents: A prospective single-arm study of diffusion tensor imaging-derived changes in the knee physis and postural stability.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Hemi-Percutaneous Epiphysiodesis Using Transphyseal Screws at Lateral Proximal Tibias After Epiphyseal Fusion of Distal Phalanges in the Hand Results in Undercorrection of Genu Varum.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Estimating the 18-Year Threshold with Third Molars Radiographs in the Southern Italy Population: Accuracy and Reproducibility of Demirjian Method.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Duration of the pubertal growth spurt in patients with increased craniofacial growth component in sagittal and vertical planes-retrospective and cross-sectional study.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessment of skeletal maturity is crucial for managing growth related problems. Tanner and Whitehouse (TW) hand and wrist bone age assessment is an accurate method; however, it is complex and labor-intensive. Several simplified methods derived from the TW method were proposed, and each had its own character. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between these methods for accurate usage.Between 2018 and 2019, a cross-sectional study was performed with consecutive left hand and wrist x-rays obtained from a pediatric orthopedic clinic. Bone age assessments included the distal radius and ulna (DRU) classification, Sanders staging (S), thumb ossification composite index (T), and TW method. Somers delta correlation was conducted to determine the interchangeability of these stages. The mean bone age and standard deviation (SD) of each subgrade were compared and analyzed.Totally 103 films (92 girls) were analyzed with mean age of 12.1 years (range: 8.0-17.9 years). The radius (R) stages had good correlation with S, T, and U stages with a very high Somers delta correlation (P < .05). R5 had relatively large SD (1.5) and referred to T2 and T3; R6 and R7 had the smallest SD (0.3) with reference to T4 or S2; R8 referred to T5 or S3, S4, S5; R9 referred to S6 and S7.The internal relationship between the DRU and digital stages system was well proven. We also provided a simple and accurate way to assess the bone age by combination of some subgrades with smaller SD: 10y-proximal thumb covered without sesamoid (T2); 10.5y-sesamoid just appearing (T3); 11y-distal radial physis just covered (medial double joint line, R6); 11.5y-medial capping of distal radial physis (R7); 12y-bilateral capping of distal radial physis (R8) / phalangeal capping without fusion (S3); 12.5y-distal phalangeal physes start to fuse (S4); 13y-distal phalangeal physes fused (S5); 13.5y-proximal phalangeal physes start to fuse (S6); 14.5y-proximal phalangeal physes fused (S7); 15y-distal radial physis almost fused (R10).Level of Evidence: Diagnostic study, level III.
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.