ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2024
Accuracy and reliability of the AO/OTA classification for tibial shaft fractures.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidemiology and outcomes of tibial plateau fractures involving the medial plateau : a comparative analysis of AO type B and C injuries.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Proximal Humerus Fractures - A Contemporary Narrative Review of Management Strategies.Orthopedic reviews · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Available literature lacks information regarding the accuracy and reliability of the AO/OTA classification for tibial shaft fractures. This study aimed to assess the inter- and intra-observer agreement and accuracy of the AO/OTA 42 classification (4-signs) for adult patients with tibial shaft fractures. Materials and methods: The study design is an accuracy, inter- and intra-observer agreement study. Anterior posterior (AP) and lateral X-rays of the fracture were used in the examination. The raters comprised of two junior doctors and two orthopedic trauma consultants, who underwent patient scoring twice in a blinded and randomized set-up. A committee including two consultant orthopedic trauma surgeons, one consultant orthopedic radiologist, and one associate professor was established to represent the "gold standard." The 3- and 4-signs AO/OTA 42 classification was used for classification. Results: A total of 101 patients were included. X-rays were available for all 101 patients. Based on the gold standard classification, AO/OTA 42-A1 (56 %) was the most common fracture type, followed by AO/OTA 42-A3 (14 %). The agreement at 4-signs, when comparing the four raters and the gold standard classification was between 75 % and 86 % (Choen's kappa 0.53 to 0.79). Choen's kappa coefficient at 4-sgns for intra-and inter-observer agreement was between 0.47 and 0.74 and 0.31 and 0.60, respectively. Conclusion: This study showed substantial to moderate accuracy of the 4-signs AO/OTA 42- classification for tibial shaft fractures. Intra-observation agreements at 4-signs showed moderate to substantial agreement with and without available CT scans. Inter-observer agreements at 4-signs showed moderate to substantial agreement with only X-rays available. Inter-observer agreements for CT scan at 4-signs showed slight to moderate agreements.
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.