ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Using the Axial Oblique View of Computed Tomography (CT) in Evaluating Femoral Anteversion: A Comparative Cadaveric Study.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A method for distance accuracy evaluation on the reformatted oblique plane of CT images.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Modified Budin Views for the Femoral Neck Anteversion at Different Hip Abduction Angles: An Experimental Study on Dry Bones.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring the Relationship Between Femoral Neck Torsion Angle and Anteversion Angle Through Three-Dimensional Reconstruction in a Fixed Coordinate System.International journal of general 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Twenty-five cadaveric adult femora’s anteversion angles were measured to develop a highly efficient and reproducible femoral anteversion measurement method using computed tomography (CT). Digital photography captured the proximal femur’s two reference lines, head-to-neck (H-N) and head-to-greater trochanter (H-G). Six reference lines (A/B in transverse section; C, axial oblique section; D/E, conventional 3D reconstruction; and M, volumetric 3D reconstruction) from CT scans were used. The posterior condylar line was used as a distal femoral reference. As measured with the H-N and H-G lines, the anteversion means were 10.43° and 19.50°, respectively. Gross anteversion measured with the H-G line had less interobserver bias (ICC; H-N = 0.956, H-G = 0.982). The 2D transverse and volumetric 3D CT sections’ B/M lines were consistent with the H-N line (p: B = 0.925, M = 0.122) and the 2D axial oblique section’s C line was consistent with the H-G line (p < 0.1). The D/E lines differed significantly from the actual gross images (p < 0.05). Among several CT scan femoral anteversion measurement methods, the novel anteversion angle measurement method using CT scans’ axial oblique section was approximated with actual gross femoral anteversion angle from the femoral head to the greater trochanter.
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.