ArticleActa radiologica open2023
Accuracy of radiographic measurements of fracture-induced deformity in the distal radius.
Article in Acta radiologica open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ulnar variance - Reliability of three different methods of measurement.Journal of clinical imaging science · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Management of the distal radius fracture (DRF) is to some extent based on radiographic characterization of fracture displacement. It remains unclear, however, if the measurements used to quantify displacement are accurate. Purpose: To quantify accuracy of two radiographic measurements: dorsal/volar tilt and fracture compression, measured indirectly as ulnar variance (UV), using radiostereometric analyses (RSA) as reference standard. Material and Methods: Twenty-one fresh frozen non-fractured human cadaveric forearms (right = 11, left = 10) were thawed and eligible for inclusion. The forearms were mounted on a custom made platform that allowed for controlled forearm rotation, and they underwent two rounds of imaging (both rounds consisted of RSA and radiographs). In round one, the non-fractured forearms were radiographed. In round two, artificial DRF´s with compression and dorsal angulation were created and imaging procedures repeated. Change in tilt and UV between the non-fractured and later fractured forearms was defined as fracture-induced deformity. Deformity was measured radiographically and additionally calculated using RSA. Bland Altman analyses were used to estimate agreement between radiographically measured, and RSA calculated, fracture-induced deformity. Results: Our results indicated that radiographs underestimate the amount of fracture-induced deformity. Mean measured differences (bias) in dorsal tilt deformity between radiographs and RSA were -2.5° for both observers. The corresponding values for UV were -1.4 mm and -1.5 mm. Conclusion: Quantifying fracture-induced deformity on radiographs underestimated the actual deformity when compared to RSA calculated deformity. These findings suggest that clinicians, at least in part, base fracture management and potentially corrective surgery on inaccurate measurements.
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.