ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Reproducibility and agreement of radiographic assessment of carpal deformities in foals.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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
Introduction: The Pivot Point (PP) method is commonly used in the radiographic assessment of carpal deformities in young foals, as the range of deviation may influence treatment choice. The aims of this study were to assess the intra- and interobserver reproducibility of the PP method and subjective radiographic evaluation without line drawing to establish the anatomical site responsible for carpal deviation in foals and to evaluate the agreement between these two techniques. Material and methods: Anonymized radiographs of foals presented for investigation of carpal deformity or prematurity were retrospectively and independently reviewed by six readers. Readers were first asked to subjectively identify the origin of the deviation and then apply the PP method and calculate the angle of deviation (PP_Angle). A second reading in a different randomized order was performed at least two weeks after the first reading. The carpi with the highest variability in PP_Angle measurements were reviewed in consensus by two other radiologists who did not perform the measurements. Results: A total of 52 radiographs from 25 foals were selected. Good intraobserver reproducibility was observed for all variables, with no significant differences between the first and second readings by the same reader. Measurement of the angle of deviation using the PP method had a high intraobserver reproducibility (correlation coefficient of 0.93, Discussion: The results of this study suggest that the PP method can reliably be used by the same reader for follow-up of carpal deformities and that there is no need to draw lines if the only required information is the origin of deviation, while measurements by different readers on the same patient may be misleading.
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.