ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2022
Measuring standing hindfoot alignment: reliability of different approaches in conventional x-ray and cone-beam CT.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2022. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in the Use of Weightbearing Computed Tomography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Early results and complication rate of the LapiCotton procedure in the treatment of medial longitudinal arch collapse: a prospective cohort study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- A comparison between the Bluman et al. and the progressive collapsing foot deformity classifications for flatfeet assessment.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Ankle Sprains in Athletes: Current Epidemiological, Clinical and Imaging Trends.Open access journal of sports medicine · 2023Review
- 3D measurement techniques for the hindfoot alignment angle from weight-bearing CT in a clinical population.Scientific reports · 2022Article
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
introductionCurrently there is no consensus how hindfoot alignment (HA) should be assessed in CBCT scans. The aim of this study is to investigate how the reliability is affected by the anatomical structures chosen for the measurement. MATERIALS AND
methodsDatasets consisting of a Saltzman View (SV) and a CBCT of the same foot were acquired prospectively and independently assessed by five raters regarding HA. In SVs the HA was estimated as follows: transversal shift between tibial shaft axis and heel contact point (1); angle between tibial shaft axis and a tangent at the medial (2) or lateral (3) calcaneal wall. In CBCT the HA was estimated as follows: transversal shift between the centre of the talus and the heel contact point (4); angle between a perpendicular line and a tangent at the medial (5) or lateral (6) calcaneal wall; angle between the distal tibial surface and a tangent at the medial calcaneal wall (7). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. A linear regression was performed to compare the different measurement regarding their correlation.
results32 patients were included in the study. The ICCs for the measurements 1-7 were as follows: (1) 0.924 [95% CI 0.876-0.959] (2) 0.533 [95% CI 0.377-0.692], (3) 0.553 [95% CI 0.399-0.708], (4) 0.930 [95% CI 0.866-0.962], (5) 0.00 [95% CI - 0.111 to 0.096], (6) 0.00 [95% CI - 0.103 to 0.111], (7) 0.152 [95% CI 0.027-0.330]. A linear regression between measurement 1 and 4 showed a correlation of 0.272 (p = 0.036).
conclusionsIt could be shown that reliability of measuring HA depends on the investigated anatomical structure. Placing a tangent along the calcaneus (2, 3, 5, 6, 7) was shown to be unreliable, whereas determining the weight-bearing heel point (1, 4) appeared to be a reliable approach. The correlation of the measurement workflows is significant (p = 0.036), but too weak (0.272) to be used clinically.
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.