ArticleSkeletal radiology2024
Distances and angles in standing long-leg radiographs: comparing conventional radiography, digital radiography, and EOS.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2024. 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.
- Normative values of the sagittal lumbopelvic alignment in children during the first decade of life : A retrospective observational study from a German paediatric orthopaedic hospital.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Observational
- Evaluation of Measurement Errors in Rotational Stitching, One-Shot, and Slot-Scanning Full-Length Radiography.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Investigation of spinopelvic sagittal alignment and its correlations in asymptomatic pediatric populations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a deep learning software for automated measurements on full-leg standing radiographs.Knee surgery & related research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDistances and angles measured from long-leg radiographs (LLR) are important for surgical decision-making. However, projectional radiography suffers from distortion, potentially generating differences between measurement and true anatomical dimension. These phenomena are not uniform between conventional radiography (CR) digital radiography (DR) and fan-beam technology (EOS). We aimed to identify differences between these modalities in an experimental setup. MATERIALS AND
methodsA hemiskeleton was stabilized using an external fixator in neutral, valgus and varus knee alignment. Ten images were acquired for each alignment and each modality: one CR setup, two different DR systems, and an EOS. A total of 1680 measurements were acquired and analyzed.
resultsWe observed great differences for dimensions and angles between the 4 modalities. Femoral head diameter measurements varied in the range of > 5 mm depending on the modality, with EOS being the closest to the true anatomical dimension. With functional leg length, a difference of 8.7% was observed between CR and EOS and with the EOS system being precise in the vertical dimension on physical-technical grounds, this demonstrates significant projectional magnification with CR-LLR. The horizontal distance between the medial malleoli varied by 20 mm between CR and DR, equating to 21% of the mean.
conclusionsProjectional distortion resulting in variations approaching 21% of the mean indicate, that our confidence on measurements from standing LLR may not be justified. It appears likely that among the tested equipment, EOS-generated images are closest to the true anatomical situation most of the time.
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.