ArticleHormones (Athens, Greece)2023
Which method is more effective in predicting adult height in pubertal girls treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist?
Article in Hormones (Athens, Greece), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Artificial intelligence algorithm for bone age estimation].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Observational
- Analysis of pubertal height gain in post-menarche girls.Medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of Methods used for Final Height Prediction in Patients with Central Precocious PubertyJournal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology · 2026Article
- Establishment of reference ranges and stability assessment for target height completion rate based on the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS).Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Automatic Bone Age Determination in Adult Height Prediction for Girls with Early Variants Puberty and Precocious PubertyJournal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the present study was to determine the efficiency of three different predictive models [Bayley-Pinneau (BP), Roche-Wainer-Thissen (RWT), and Tanner-Whitehouse 2 (TW2)] by comparing their predictions with near-adult height data of girls receiving gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) therapy.
methodsClinical findings were retrospectively analyzed. Bone ages obtained before treatment were evaluated from left hand and wrist radiographs by three researchers. Predicted adult height (PAH) was calculated using the BP, RWT, and TW2 methods for each patient at the beginning of therapy.
resultsThe median age at diagnosis of the 48 patients included in the study was 8.8 (8.9-9.3) years. There was no significant difference between the mean bone ages evaluated separately with the Greulich-Pyle atlas and the TW3-RUS method (p=0.34). Among the PAH methods, only PAH measured by the BP method was very close to and no different from near adult height (NAH) [159.8±6.3 vs. 158.8±9.3 cm. p=0.3; (-0.5±1.1) vs. (-0.7±1.6) standard deviation score, p=0.1]. Accordingly, the BP method was found to be the most accurate prediction tool in girls with puberty treated with GnRHa.
conclusionThe BP method is more effective at predicting adult height than the RWT and TW2 methods in female patients who will receive GnRHa treatment.
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.