ArticleBJR open2024
Specialist learning curves and clinical feasibility of introducing a new MRI grading system for skeletal maturity.
Article in BJR open, 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: MRI is an emerging imaging modality to assess skeletal maturity. This study aimed to chart the learning curves of paediatric radiologists when using an unfamiliar MRI grading system of skeletal maturity and to assess the clinical feasibility of implementing said system. Methods: 958 healthy paediatric volunteers were prospectively included in a dual-facility study. Each subject underwent a conventional MRI scan at 1.5 T. To perform the image reading, the participants were grouped into five subsets (subsets 1-5) of equal size ( Results: Mean weighted Cohen kappa values for each pair of blinded readers compared to consensus reading (interreader reliability, R1-2 vs consensus) were ≥0.85, showing a strong to almost perfect interreader agreement at both non-cumulative and cumulative time points and in all growth plate locations. Weighted Cohen kappa values for interreader (R1 vs R2) and intrareader reliability (R1 vs R1) were ≥0.72 at non-cumulative time points, with values ≥0.82 at subset 5. Conclusions: Paediatric radiologists' clinical confidence when introduced to a new MRI grading system for skeletal maturity was high from the outset of their learning curve, despite the radiologists' varying levels of work experience with MRI assessment. The MRI grading system for skeletal maturity investigated in this study is a robust clinical method when used by paediatric radiologists and can be used in clinical practice. Advances in knowledge: Radiologists with fellowship training in paediatric radiology experienced no learning curve progress when introduced to a new MRI grading system for skeletal maturity and achieved desirable agreement from the first time point of the learning curve. The robustness of the investigated MRI grading system was not affected by the earlier different levels of MRI experience among the readers.
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.