ArticleActa ortopedica brasileira2024
ASSESSEMENT OF BONE AGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAUVEGRAIN AND GREULICH AND PYLE METHODS.
Article in Acta ortopedica brasileira, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the intra and inter observer agreement of the Sauvegrain, Greulich and Pyle methods. Material and methods: This is an observational, retrospective and cross-sectional study ethically approved by opinion 6,192,391. 100 radiographic images of the elbow and 100 of the left wrist and hand were collected from children whose images were selected by a researcher who did not carry out the evaluations. The Sauvegrain, Greulich and Pyle methods were used to determine bone age. We provided a detailed explanation of each method and the evaluators received a file with the study images. After three weeks, the exams were randomized and the radiograms were reevaluated. Of the 100 patients in group A, 61 (61%) were boys and 39 (39%) were girls. In group B, 67 (67%) were boys and 33 (33%) were girls. Four statistical analyzes were used: correlation; intraclass correlation; analysis using the Bland-Altman graph; differences between groups. Results: Intra and interobserver agreement between groups was considered excellent. Conclusions: Despite the excellent agreement, group A presented a significantly better value than B. Biological ages show a greater difference compared to chronological ages in group A. In group B, skeletal and chronological ages do not show statistical difference according to the accuracy test.
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.