ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2022
The Reliability and Reproducibility of a New Revised Edelson Classification.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveEdelson classification is a 3D classification of proximal humeral fractures, but there is a scarcity of application of this classification in large samples, and the accuracy of classification was also not testified. The objective of this research was to verify whether a revised Edelson classification produces satisfactory agreement for proximal humeral fracture classification in adult patients.
methodsA total of 827 proximal humeral fractures (304 male and 520 female patients, 58.0 ± 16.2 years) were found retrospectively from January 2014 to December 2019, and classified according to the traditional and newly proposed Edelson classification. The three-dimensional CT images were processed, rotated and visualized within software. Five shoulder surgeons classified each fracture. After data collection, radiographic classifications results were compared by inter- and intraobserver analysis with the method of weighted kappa coefficients. Fracture classification based on Edelson and revised Edelson classification was presented and compared.
resultsThe mean k value for the interobserver reliability was 0.748 (range, 0.583 to 0.958) compared with Edelson classification (0.548, range, 0.48 to 0.635), indicating satisfactory agreement. The mean k value for intraobserver reliability was 0.906 (range, 0.823 to 0.943) compared with Edelson classification (0.762, range, 0.666 to 0.808), indicating excellent agreement when using the newly revised Edelson classification. The mechanism was categorized as the shoulder being in a position of forward flexion, abduction, and internal rotation in Edelson I-IV and bicipital fractures. For the greater tuberosity fracture, the mechanism was classified into two mechanisms based on the presence of a combined dislocation. Bicipital groove fracture is a commonly observed fracture pattern, and included in the revised Edelson classification.
conclusionsThe revised Edelson classification proposed was more in line with the injury mechanism of the fracture, was beneficial in identifying more fracture types such as bicipital groove fracture, and verified to be a good proximal humeral fracture classification with good reliability compared with the traditional Edelson classification.
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.