Trial reportSpine deformity2024
A modified position for optimized skeletal maturity assessment of AIS patients and its impact on 3D spinal and pelvic parameters.
Trial report in Spine deformity, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA hands-on-wall (HOW) position for low-dose stereoradiography of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients would allow for skeletal maturity assessment of the hand and wrist. Our aims were twofold: confirm the reliability and validity of skeletal maturity assessment using the HOW radiographs and compare the spinal and pelvic 3D parameters to those of standard hands-on-cheeks (HOC) stereoradiographs.
methodsSeventy AIS patients underwent two successive stereoradiographs and a standard hand and wrist radiograph on the same day. Patients were randomly assigned to begin with HOW and follow with HOC, or vice versa. Raters assessed digital skeletal age (DSA), Sanders Simplified Skeletal Maturity (SSMS) and Thumb Ossification Composite Index (TOCI). 3D reconstructions of the spine and pelvis bones were performed for each stereoradiograph to measure nine clinically relevant spinal and pelvic 3D parameters.
resultsInter-rater and intra-rater reliabilities were excellent for DSA, SSMS and TOCI with both standard radiographs and HOW (ICC > 0.95). Strong correlation was found between ratings of both imaging types (ICC > 0.95). In the 3D reconstructions, kyphosis and sacral slope were slightly decreased in the HOW position, but within the clinical margin of error. All other parameters did not differ significantly between positions (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe results suggest that HOW stereoradiographs allow clinicians to assess skeletal maturity of the hand and wrist with adequate reliability and validity. We recommend that scoliosis clinics adopt the HOW position to assess skeletal maturity because there is no significant clinical impact on the spinal and pelvic evaluation, and on radiation exposure, cost or time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38819535What 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.