ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2024
Reliability of Assessing Distal Radius Fractures on a Smartphone Versus PACS.
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Knowledge, Utilisation, and Challenges of Medical Doctors Using Picture Archiving and Communication Systems at a Tertiary Academic Hospital in the Eastern Cape, South Africa.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunication between health care providers is becoming more intertwined with technology. During the pandemic, telehealth strategies grew exponentially. Remote viewing of imaging on a smartphone may offer efficient communication; however, the reliability of injury assessment when compared with traditional methods is not known. The purpose of this study was to evaluate intraobserver and interobserver reliability of distal radius fracture radiograph review for smartphone versus traditional Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS).
methodsEight evaluators (3 attending hand surgeons, 3 hand surgery fellows, 2 orthopedic residents) evaluated 26 distal radius fracture radiographs on 2 different viewers: smartphone or PACS. The reviewers were asked to record: (1) operative or nonoperative preference; (2) fracture classification (based on Fernandez and Jupiter); and (3) treatment strategy (volar plate, dorsal plate, pins, cast, bridge plate, or fragment-specific fixation). The percentage of intraobserver agreement was recorded for each observer. Reliability was calculated using Fleiss' kappa coefficient for intraobserver and interobserver agreement and graded by strength of correlation.
resultsIntraobserver agreement averaged 97% when deciding between operative and nonoperative treatment, 76% for classification, and 84% for treatment. Kappa scores were graded as "excellent" for operative decision and "substantial" for classification and treatment. Attendings and fellows generally had higher agreement than that of residents. Interobserver agreement was graded as "substantial" for all categories for both PACS and smartphone.
conclusionsEvaluation of radiographs on a smartphone for the purpose of treating distal radius fractures does not appear to be significantly different from an evaluation on traditional PACS.
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.