ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2024
The reliability of clinical tools with and without ultrasound guidance to measure leg-length inequality.
Article in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine and compare the reliability and efficiency of various methods of leg-length measurement. Methods: A total of 88 leg-lengths were measured among 50 subjects (79%-84% female, mean age = 30-33 years). Leg-lengths were measured in both supine and standing positions using multiple devices, including a tape measure, a LASER distance meter, and diagnostic ultrasound. Results: All methods of leg-length measurement using the middle of the femoral head as a reference point, identified via ultrasound, demonstrated excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.95-1.00). Measurements performed in supine, using the anterior superior iliac spine as a reference point, with a tape measure, demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.86-0.95, standard error of the measurement = 16.1-19.9 cm). Standing measurements using the anterior superior iliac spine as a reference point, using a tape measure, demonstrated fair-to-excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.71-0.95). Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided landmark identification appear to be a more reliable method compared to palpation of the anterior superior iliac spine for measurement of leg-length using clinical tools. When coupled with ultrasound guidance, a hand-held LASER distance meter/pitch locator apparatus or a retractable tape measure appears to be acceptable alternatives to a fixed LASER distance meter on a linear actuator for leg-length measurement.
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.