Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36350387›Full record

ReviewSkeletal radiology2023

Weight-bearing cone-beam CT: the need for standardised acquisition protocols and measurements to fulfill high expectations-a review of the literature.

Signe Brinch, Ruud H H Wellenberg, Mikael Ploug Boesen, Mario Maas, Finn Elkjær Johannsen, Janus Uhd Nybing, Tom Turmezei, Geert J Streekstra, Philip Hansen

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Skeletal radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Inducible displacement of cementless total knee arthroplasty components with conventional and weight-bearing CT-based radiostereometric analysis.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Signe BrinchDepartment of Radiology, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. Signe.brinch@regionh.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9885-2495
Ruud H H WellenbergDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Location AMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Mikael Ploug BoesenDepartment of Radiology, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mario MaasDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Location AMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Finn Elkjær JohannsenDepartment of Sports Medicine, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Janus Uhd NybingDepartment of Radiology, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tom TurmezeiDepartment of Radiology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK.
Geert J StreekstraDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Location AMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Philip HansenDepartment of Radiology, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Weight bearing CT (WBCT) of the lower extremity is gaining momentum in evaluation of the foot/ankle and knee. A growing number of international studies use WBCT, which is promising for improving our understanding of anatomy and biomechanics during natural loading of the lower extremity. However, we believe there is risk of excessive enthusiasm for WBCT leading to premature application of the technique, before sufficiently robust protocols are in place e.g. standardised limb positioning and imaging planes, choice of anatomical landmarks and image slices used for individual measurements. Lack of standardisation could limit benefits from introducing WBCT in research and clinical practice because useful imaging information could become obscured. Measurements of bones and joints on WBCT are influenced by joint positioning and magnitude of loading, factors that need to be considered within a 3-D coordinate system. A proportion of WBCT studies examine inter- and intraobserver reproducibility for different radiological measurements in the knee or foot with reproducibility generally reported to be high. However, investigations of test-retest reproducibility are still lacking. Thus, the current ability to evaluate, e.g. the effects of surgery or structural disease progression, is questionable. This paper presents an overview of the relevant literature on WBCT in the lower extremity with an emphasis on factors that may affect measurement reproducibility in the foot/ankle and knee. We discuss the caveats of performing WBCT without consensus on imaging procedures and measurements.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyMotivationFootHumansReproducibility of ResultsWeight-BearingCBCTCone beam CTLower extremityReproducibilityStandardisationTest–retestWeight-bearing WBCT

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.