ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2024
Comparison Static and Dynamic Ultrasound Techniques of DDH: The Role of the Patient's Position.
Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 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.
- Ultrasound Applications in Pediatric Orthopedics.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The ultrasound examination of the hip joint is performed in the static (Graf) technique in the lateral recumbent position and in the dynamic technique in the supine position. This study compares the two static and dynamic techniques and assesses the role of the patient's position in the examination of DDH. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2020-2021 at Akbar Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Iran. 126 patients suspected of having DDH (199 hip) infants were enrolled in the study. All ultrasound examinations were performed with two static and dynamic techniques by a pediatric radiologist. Results: In the static and dynamic ultrasound examinations, the average alpha angle was 51.57 ± 6.41 degrees, and 53.41 ± 6.94 degrees, respectively. These changes were not statistically significant (P = 0.312). The relationship and agreement between instability with dynamic technique and instability with static technique (IIC unstable, D, III, and IV) were investigated. Significant agreement (Kappa=0.77 (95% CI: 0.66-0.87) with excellent clinical significance was obtained between the two ultrasound examination method. Also, in terms of DDH types in the static method with instability types in the dynamic method, a substantial agreement was found between the two examination methods (Kappa =0.67; (95% CI: 0.59-0.75) with good clinical significance. Conclusion: In the ultrasound examination of DDH with static and dynamic techniques, the change in the alpha angle was not statistically significant. Therefore, the hand of the radiologist is open in measuring alpha angles and there is no need to emphasize a specific position. The type of DDH in the static technique completely corresponded to the type of stability or instability in the dynamic technique.
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.