ArticleShoulder & elbow2022
Anatomical plane and transverse axis of the scapula: Reliability of manual positioning of the anatomical landmarks.
Article in Shoulder & elbow, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep Learning-Based Scapular Morphology Assessment Pipeline for Glenoid Segmentation and Landmark Localization.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of scapula anatomical landmark positioning on scapular orientation using CT-based 3-dimensional models: an intraobserver repeatability and interobserver reproducibility study.JSES international · 2025Article
- Can We Completely Trust in Automated Software for Preoperative Planning of Shoulder Arthroplasty? Software Update May Modify Glenoid Version, Glenoid Inclination and Humeral Head Subluxation Values.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Glenoid Inclination: Choosing the Transverse Axis Is Critical-A 3D Automated versus Manually Measured Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of manual determination of the three key points defining the anatomical plane of the scapula, which conditions the reliability of planning software programs based on manual method. Method: We included 82 scapula computed tomography scans (56 pathologic and 26 normal glenoid), excluding truncation and major three-dimensional artifact. Four observers independently picked the three key points for each case. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was calculated for each point, using the intraclass correlation method. The mean error (mm) between the observers was calculated as the diameter of the smallest sphere including the four chosen positions. Results: Lower inter-observer agreement was found for the trigonum superoinferior position and for the glenoid center anteroposterior position. The mean positioning error between the four observers was 6.9 mm for the trigonum point, and error greater than 10 mm was recorded in 25% of the cases. The mean positioning error was 3.5 mm for the glenoid center in altered glenoid, compared to 1.8 mm for normal glenoid. Discussion: Manual determination of an anatomical plane of the scapula suffers from inaccuracy especially due to the variability in trigonum picking, and in a lesser extent, to the variability of glenoid center picking in altered glenoid.
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.