Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35003540›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2021

Significant Assessment Discrepancies Occur Between the Examiners Having and Not Having Further Special Hands-on Course Trainings in Infantile Hip Ultrasonography by the Graf Method.

Hakan Ömeroğlu

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hakan ÖmeroğluOrthopaedics and Traumatology, Mutlukent Mh., Cankaya, 06800 Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-2523-0115
Çankaya University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of the studyThe purpose of this retrospective diagnostic study was to investigate whether or not assessment variabilities occurred in hip ultrasonography (US) by the Graf method between the examiners having (CC) and not having (NoCC) additional special hands-on course trainings by the authorized trainers. METHODOLOGY: Randomly selected 270 hip sonograms of 135 babies were independently assessed by CC and NoCC according to the Graf method.

resultsAn inconsistency between CC and NoCC regarding the US diagnosis was seen in 128 hips (47%). This was mainly due to the fact that CC considered 120 of 128 sonograms unusable according to the checklist of the Graf's examination technique. Probe tilting errors followed by non-visualization of lower limb of os ilium as well as of chondroosseous junction were the most noticed technical problems by CC. There was a significant difference between CC and NoCC concerning the measurement of beta angle. This was mainly due to discordance between the groups about identifying the "bony rim" point.

conclusionSignificant hip US image assessment variabilities exist between the examiners having further trainings by the authorized trainers in special hands-on courses and the examiners having no further trainings in special hands-on courses in the Graf method. The findings of this study may emphasize the importance of training the hip US practitioners in the special hands-on courses for providing a standard clinical practice as well as for avoiding the assessment variabilities between the examiners in the Graf method.

Indexed as

Course trainingDevelopmental dysplasia of the hipGraf methodHip ultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID35003540
PMCPMC8688625
OpenAlexW3199946557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.