ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
The Comparison of Lower Extremity Length and Angle between Computed Radiography-Based Teleoroentgenogram and EOS
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guide to lower extremity radiologic measurements: part 1 hip.Skeletal radiology · 2026Review
- When Do Scanograms and Standing Ankle Radiographs Differ? A Comparative Analysis of Ankle Alignment Measurements.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Redefining physiological whole-body alignment according to pelvic incidence: normative values and prediction models.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Measurement Errors in Rotational Stitching, One-Shot, and Slot-Scanning Full-Length Radiography.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Accuracy and precision of in vitro EOS imaging compared to digital radiographs in the measurement of intramedullary lengthening.Skeletal radiology · 2025Article
- Review
- Does the use of intraoperative measurement reduce limb length discrepancies after total hip arthroplasty?BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- A Comparison of Radiographic Outcomes after Total Hip Arthroplasty between the Direct Lateral Approach and Posterior Lateral Approach with EOS 2D/3D X-Ray Imaging System.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Leg length discrepancy assessment in total hip arthroplasty: is a pelvic radiograph sufficient?Bone & joint open · 2022Article
- Tibia Multiplanar Deformities and Growth Disturbance Following Expandable Endoprosthetic Distal Femur Replacement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Imaging in Hip Arthroplasty Management-Part 1: Templating: Past, Present and Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Imaging in Hip Arthroplasty Management Part 2: Postoperative Diagnostic Imaging Strategy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: The differences between computed radiography-based teleoroentgenograms (CR-based teleoroentgenograms) and an EOS® imaging system were evaluated by measuring lower extremity lengths and alignments. Materials and methods: The leg length [L], femur length [F], tibia length [T], and hip−knee−ankle (HKA) angle were measured in 101 patients with lower extremity disease by a CR-based teleoroentgenogram with computed radiography and an EOS®. The additive length of the femoral and tibial segments (F + T) was determined by adding the two length values. Then, the differences among all five parameters between the two techniques were analyzed. The magnification (mm) was calculated by subtracting the length measurements on the EOS® from those in the scanogram. Furthermore, the magnification percentage (%) was calculated by dividing the magnification with the measurements on the EOS®. Results: The magnification errors (mean ± standard deviation), when comparing both right and left sides, were 7.80 ± 1.41%, 7.3 ± 6.01%, 5.16 ± 1.25%, and 6.45 ± 0.94% for L, F, T, and F + T, respectively. For limb length, the CR-based teleoroentgenogram had an average magnification of 6.8% (range, 5.2 to 7.8%) compared to the EOS® imaging. The two groups displayed a statistical difference (p < 0.01), except for the HKA angle. Conclusions: The CR-based teleoroentgenogram had a magnification of about 6.8% compared to the EOS® imaging system in evaluating lower extremity length. Therefore, more attention must be given to CR-based teleoroentgenograms to correct angular deformities.
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.