ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Reliability and validity of the Paprosky classification for acetabular bone loss based on level of orthopedic training.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma 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.
- Pseudotumor following total hip arthroplasty: experience of a tertiary referral center and proposal of the new "PCS" classification system.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliability and validity of the Paprosky classification for acetabular bone loss have been debated. Additionally, the relationship between surgeon training level and Paprosky classification accuracy/treatment selection is poorly defined. This study aimed to: (1) evaluate the validity of preoperative Paprosky classification/treatment selection compared to intraoperative classification/treatment selection and (2) evaluate the relationship between training level and intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of preoperative classification and treatment choice.
methodsSeventy-four patients with intraoperative Paprosky types [I (N = 24), II (N = 27), III (N = 23)] were selected. Six raters (Residents (N = 2), Fellows (N = 2), Attendings (N = 2)) independently provided Paprosky classification and treatment using preoperative radiographs. Graders reviewed images twice, 14 days apart. Cohen's Kappa was calculated for (1) inter-rater agreement of Paprosky classification/treatment by training level (2), intra-rater reliability, (3) preoperative and intraoperative classification agreement, and (4) preoperative treatment selection and actual treatment performed.
resultsInter-rater agreement between raters of the same training level was moderate (K range = 0.42-0.50), and mostly poor for treatment selection (K range = 0.02-0.44). Intra-rater agreement ranged from fair to good (K range = 0.40-0.73). Agreement between preoperative and intraoperative classifications was fair (K range = 0.25-0.36). Agreement between preoperative treatment selections and actual treatments was fair (K range = 0.21-0.39).
conclusionInter-rater reliability of Paprosky classification was poor to moderate for all training levels. Preoperative Paprosky classification showed fair agreement with intraoperative Paprosky grading. Treatment selections based on preoperative radiographs had fair agreement with actual treatments. Further research should investigate the role of advanced imaging and alternative classifications in evaluation of acetabular bone loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39311938What 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.