ArticleApplied bionics and biomechanics2022
The Application of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Skeletal Age Assessment.
Article in Applied bionics and biomechanics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retracted: The Application of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Skeletal Age Assessment.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-08-16Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Informed/Patient Consent - None/Withdrawn · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Lack of IRB/IACUC Approval and/or Compliance · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · · See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/1AC4482C6AD1960C265D7EF35103AA
- Retracted
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
methodThe study includes 80 patients identified from an endocrine clinic, two males and two females from each of 5 age groups (<5, 5 to 7, 8 to 10, 11 to 13, and 14 to 16 years). Skeletal age as determined from an open MRI scanner and radiographs performed on the same day was compared for each child. Two observers assess the skeletal age from radiographs and MRI images independently. After a period of at least three weeks, observers determined the skeletal age of all patients independently. All of the images were in different and random orders, on both of the assessment occasions. The agreement was assessed using the interclass correlation coefficient and Bland Altman plots.
resultsPatients' age ranged from 3 to 16 years, in which the mean of the chronological age was 9.3 years (±2.9) and 9.8 years (±2.7) in girls and boys, respectively. The interrater agreement for skeletal age determination was 0.984 for radiographs and 0.976 for MRI scans. Using the G&P technique, for Observer 1, intraobserver agreement for radiographs and DXA was 0.993 and 0.983, respectively, and 0.995 and 0.994, respectively, for Observer 2. Plotting the rater readings against the line of equality shows no significant differences between readings acquired from radiographs and MRI scans.
conclusionFor the study contribution, it is possible to employ open compact MRI to determine the skeletal age of a person. Our results showed that left-hand MRI scans were of better quality than the radiographs.
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.