ArticleSkeletal radiology2024
Inter-rater variability and repeatability in the assessment of the Tanner-Whitehouse classification of hand radiographs for the estimation of bone age.
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 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine which bones and which grades had the highest inter-rater variability when employing the Tanner-Whitehouse (T-W) method. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-four radiologists were recruited and trained in the T-W classification of skeletal development. The consistency and skill of the radiologists in determining bone development status were assessed using 20 pediatric hand radiographs of children aged 1 to 18 years old. Four radiologists had a poor concordance rate and were excluded. The remaining 20 radiologists undertook a repeat reading of the radiographs, and their results were analyzed by comparing them with the mean assessment of two senior experts as the reference standard. Concordance rate, scoring, and Kendall's W were calculated to evaluate accuracy and consistency.
resultsBoth the radius, ulna, and short finger (RUS) system (Kendall's W = 0.833) and the carpal (C) system (Kendall's W = 0.944) had excellent consistency, with the RUS system outperforming the C system in terms of scores. The repeatability analysis showed that the second rating test, performed after 2 months of further bone age assessment (BAA) practice, was more consistent and accurate than the first. The capitate had the lowest average concordance rate and scoring, as well as the lowest overall concordance rate for its D classification. Moreover, the G classifications of the seven carpal bones all had a concordance rate less than 0.6. The bones with lower Kendall's W were likewise those with lower scores and concordance rates.
conclusionThe D grade of the capitate showed the highest variation, and the use of the Tanner-Whitehouse 3rd edition (T-W3) to determine bone age (BA) was frequently inconsistent. A more comprehensive description with a focus on inaccuracy bones or ratings and a modification to the T-W3 approach would significantly advance BAA.
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.