ArticleBMC oral health2024
The reliability of a modified three-stage cervical vertebrae maturation method for estimating skeletal growth in males and females.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radiographic choice for skeletal maturation assessment: a systematic review of Cervical Vertebrae Method and Middle Phalanx Method.Oral radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of a Machine Learning Model for Cervical Vertebra-Based Skeletal Maturity Assessment in Pediatric and Adolescent Patients Using Cephalometric Radiographs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Novel Dual-Output Deep Learning Model Based on InceptionV3 for Radiographic Bone Age and Gender Assessment.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Can classification strategies improve automated cervical vertebral maturation staging? A comparative study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Deep learning based quantitative cervical vertebral maturation analysis.Head & face medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliability of the six-stage cervical vertebrae maturation method to evaluate skeletal growth was evaluated on the combined male and female samples and revealed diverse results. The current study aimed to determine the reliability of the modified three-stage cervical vertebrae maturation method for estimating the skeletal growth of males and females.
methodsPretreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of 137 orthodontic patients were utilized to evaluate the intra- and inter-observer reliability of a modified cervical vertebrae maturation method. Four independent examiners categorized each radiograph into one of the three skeletal growth stages according to the cervical vertebrae morphology: (1) a pre-peak group (combining the CS1 and CS2 stages), (2) a peak group (combining the CS3 and CS4 stages), and (3) a post-peak group (combining the CS5 and CS6 stages). The Kappa index and the Fleiss multirater Kappa test were carried out to determine the reproducibility of this method.
resultsThe studied sample included cephalometric radiographs of 68 males (49.6%) and 69 females (50.4%) aged between 7 and 58 years; no significant age difference was found between the sexes (p = 0.189). The overall inter-observer reliability was 0.689 (p < 0.001), and the inter-observer reliability for the post-peak stage showed only Kappa = 0.896 (p < 0.001). The Kappa values were significantly greater in males than in females during the peak stage (0.626 and 0.488, respectively).
conclusionsA modified three-stage cervical vertebrae maturation method showed substantial overall inter-examiner agreement; however, differential reliability for diverse skeletal maturation stages and sexes was found.
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.