ArticleScientific reports2024
Development and validation of a novel overhead method for anteroposterior radiographs of fractured rat femurs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We aimed to establish a new method of obtaining femur anteroposterior radiographs from live rats. We used five adult male Sprague-Dawley rats and created a femoral fracture model with an 8 mm segmental fragment. After the surgery, we obtained two femoral anteroposterior radiographs, a novel overhead method, and a traditional craniocaudal view. We obtained the overhead method three times, craniocaudal view once, and anteroposterior radiograph of the isolated femoral bone after euthanasia. We compared the overhead method and craniocaudal view with an isolated femoral anteroposterior view. We used a two-sample t-test and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to estimate the intra-observer reliability. The overhead method had significantly smaller differences than the craniocaudal view for nail length (1.53 ± 1.26 vs. 11.4 ± 3.45, p < 0.001, ICC 0.96) and neck shaft angle (5.82 ± 3.8 vs. 37.8 ± 5.7, p < 0.001, ICC 0.96). No significant differences existed for intertrochanteric length/femoral head diameter (0.23 ± 0.13 vs. 0.23 ± 0.13, p = 0.96, ICC 0.98) or lateral condyle/medial condyle width (0.15 ± 0.16 vs. 0.13 ± 0.08, p = 0.82, ICC 0.99). A fragment displacement was within 0.11 mm (2.4%). The overhead method was closer to the isolated femoral anteroposterior view and had higher reliability.
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.