ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2022
A comparative study of three bone age assessment methods on Chinese preschool-aged children.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dual-input deep learning bone age assessment in late adolescence using hand and knee radiographs.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Short-term whole-body vibration in adolescents: A prospective single-arm study of diffusion tensor imaging-derived changes in the knee physis and postural stability.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- A comparative study of the interpretation results of different artificial intelligence bone age assessment software.Journal of pediatric endocrinology & metabolism : JPEM · 2026Article
- A developmental stage-aware graph transformer framework for automated bone-age assessment.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Quantifying knee cartilage development trajectories in children aged 6-12 years via diffusion tensor imaging.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Observational
- Comparative analysis of the bone age of wrist bones in Chinese children with different causes of short stature and central precocious puberty.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- The association between foot morphological development and bone maturation in children: a cross-sectional study.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Analysis of growth and development levels and influencing factors in children aged 3-12 years in a certain region: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence model system for bone age assessment of preschool children.Pediatric research · 2024Article
- Inter-rater variability and repeatability in the assessment of the Tanner-Whitehouse classification of hand radiographs for the estimation of bone age.Skeletal radiology · 2024Article
- Development of a simplified new method of bone age estimation using three bones of the hand and wrist.Endocrine · 2024Article
- Validation of an established TW3 artificial intelligence bone age assessment system: a prospective, multicenter, confirmatory study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Precision and Accuracy of Radiological Bone Age Assessment in Children among Different Ethnic Groups: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bone age assessment (BAA) is an essential tool utilized in outpatient pediatric clinics. Three major BAA methods, Greulich-Pyle (GP), Tanner-Whitehouse 3 (TW3), and China 05 RUS-CHN (RUS-CHN), were applied to comprehensively compare bone age (BA) and chronological age (CA) in a Chinese sample of preschool children. This study was designed to determine the most reliable method. Methods: The BAA sample consisted of 207 females and 183 males aged 3-6 years from the Zhejiang Province in China. The radiographs were estimated according to the GP, TW3, and RUS-CHN methods by two pediatric radiologists. The data was analyzed statistically using boxplots, the Wilcoxon rank test, and Student's Results: According to the distributions of D, the boxplots showed that the median D of the TW3 method was close to zero for both male and female subjects. The TW3 and RUS-CHN methods overestimated the age of both genders. The TW3 method had the highest correct classification rate for males but a similar rate for females. The GP method did not show any significant difference between the BA and CA when applied to 3-year-old males and 4-year-old females while the TW3 method showed similar results when applied to 6-year-old females. The RUS-CHN method showed the least consistent results among the three methods. Conclusion: The TW3 method was superior to the GP and RUS-CHN methods but not reliable on its own. It should be noted that a precise age diagnosis for preschool children cannot be easily made if only one of the methods is utilized. Therefore, it is advantageous to combine multiple methods when assessing bone age.
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.