Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37256354›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

3-D joint space mapping at the ankle from weight-bearing CT: reproducibility, repeatability, and challenges for standardisation.

Tom D Turmezei, Karan Malhotra, James W MacKay, Andrew H Gee, Graham M Treece, Kenneth E S Poole, Matthew J Welck

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Morphological analysis of ankle joint space width.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Weight-Bearing CT for Diseases around the Ankle Joint.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tom D TurmezeiDepartment of Radiology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Colney Lane, Norwich, UK. tom.turmezei@nnuh.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0365-8054
Karan MalhotraRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, UK.
James W MacKayNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, UK.
Andrew H GeeCambridge University Engineering Department, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, UK.
Graham M TreeceCambridge University Engineering Department, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, UK.
Kenneth E S PooleDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Hills Road, Cambridge, UK.
Matthew J WelckRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe present a 3-D approach to joint space width (JSW) measurement across the ankle from weight-bearing CT (WBCT) to demonstrate inter-operator reproducibility, test-retest repeatability, and how differences in angulation affect ankle JSW distribution.

methodsOne side from repeat WBCT imaging of both feet and ankles was analysed from 23 individuals as part of their routine clinical care pathway. Joint space mapping was performed at four facets across the talus: talonavicular, talar dome and medial gutter (dome-medial), lateral gutter, and posterior subtalar. Inter-operator reproducibility was calculated for two users, while test-retest repeatability was calculated by comparing the two visits, both presented as Bland-Altman statistics. Statistical parametric mapping determined any significant relationships between talocrural joint space angulation and 3-D JSW distribution.

resultsThe average ± standard deviation interval between imaging was 74.0 ± 29.6 days. Surface averaged bias ± limits of agreement were similar for reproducibility and repeatability, the latter being: talonavicular 0.01 ± 0.26 mm, dome-medial 0.00 ± 0.28 mm, lateral gutter - 0.02 ± 0.40 mm, and posterior subtalar 0.02 ± 0.34 mm. Results are presented as 3-D distribution maps, with optimum test-retest repeatability reaching a smallest detectable difference of ± 0.15 mm.

conclusionsJoint space mapping is a robust approach to 3-D quantification of JSW measurement, inter-operator reproducibility, and test-retest repeatability at the ankle, with sensitivity reaching a best value of ± 0.15 mm. Standardised imaging protocols and optimised metal artefact reduction will be needed to further understand the clinical value of these 3-D measures derived from WBCT. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Weight-bearing computed tomography is an increasingly important tool in the clinical assessment of orthopaedic ankle disorders. This paper establishes the performance of measuring 3-D joint space width using this technology, which is an important surrogate marker for severity of osteoarthritis. KEY POINTS: • Joint space width values and error metrics from across the ankle measured from weight-bearing CT can be presented as 3-D maps that show topographic variation. • The best sensitivity for detecting meaningful change in 3-D joint space width at the ankle was ± 0.15 mm, a value less than the isotropic imaging voxel dimensions. • Standardised imaging protocols and optimised metal artefact reduction will be needed to understand the clinical value of 3-D measures from weight-bearing CT.

Indexed as

AnkleAnkle JointHumansReproducibility of ResultsTomography, X-Ray ComputedWeight-BearingAnkle jointCone-beam computed tomographyOsteoarthritisReproducibility of resultsWeight-bearing

Identifiers

PMID37256354
PMCPMC10598168
OpenAlexW4378781723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.