ArticleJournal of anatomy2024
ArUco-based stylus reliability for reproductible 3D digitalisation of shoulder cartilage contours.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- ArUco-based stylus reliability for reproductible 3D digitalisation of shoulder cartilage contours.Journal of anatomy · 2024Article
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 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Imaging techniques in anatomy have developed rapidly over the last decades through the emergence of various 3D scanning systems. Depending on the dissection level, non-contact or tactile contact methods can be applied on the targeted structure. The aim of this study was to assess the inter and intra-observer reproducibility of an ArUco-based localisation stylus, that is, a manual technique on a hand-held stylus. Ten fresh-frozen, unembalmed adult arms were used to digitalise the glenoid cartilage related to the glenohumeral joint and the contour of the clavicle cartilage related to the acromioclavicular joint. Three operators performed consecutive digitalisations of each cartilage contour using an ArUco-based localisation stylus recorded by a single monocular camera. The shape of each cartilage was defined by nine shape parameters. Intra-observer repeatability and inter-observer reproducibility were computed using an intra-class correlation (ICC) for each of these parameters. Overall, 35.2 ± 2.4 s and 26.6 ± 10.2 s were required by each examiner to digitalise the contour of a glenoid and acromioclavicular cartilage, respectively. For most parameters, good-to-excellent agreements were observed concerning intra-observer (ICC ranging between 0.81 and 1.00) and inter-observer (ICC ranging between 0.75 and 0.99) reproducibility. To conclude, through a fast and versatile process, the use of an ArUco-based localisation stylus can be a reliable low-cost alternative to conventional imaging methods to digitalise shoulder cartilage contours.
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.