ArticleAsian spine journal2025
A new classification of atlas fracture based on computed tomography: reliability, reproducibility, and preliminary clinical significance.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2025. 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.
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
Abstract
STUDY
designA retrospective study. PURPOSE: This study aimed to observe the computed tomography (CT) characteristics of atlas fracture and propose a new CT classification system, evaluate its reliability and repeatability, and discuss its clinical significance. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The treatment and classification of atlas fracture remain controversial. At present, no classification method has been standardized for atlas fracture. Injury to the transverse atlantal ligament (TAL) and lateral mass displacement is still controversial.
methodsSeventy-five patients with atlas fracture were included from January 2015 to December 2020. Based on the anatomy of the fracture line, atlas fractures were divided into three types. Each type was divided into two subtypes according to the fracture displacement. Unweighted Cohen kappa coefficients were applied to evaluate the reliability and reproducibility.
resultsAccording to the new classification, 17 cases of type A1, 12 of type A2, seven of type B1, 13 of type B2, 12 of type C1, and 14 of type C2 were identified. The K-values of the interobserver and intraobserver reliability were 0.846 and 0.912, respectively, for the new classification. The K-values of interobserver reliability for types A, B, and C were 0.843, 0.799, and 0.898, respectively. The K-values of intraobserver reliability for types A, B, and C were 0.888, 0.910, and 0.935, respectively. The mean K-values of the interobserver and intraobserver reliability for subtypes were 0.687 and 0.829, respectively.
conclusionsThe new classification of atlas fractures can cover nearly all atlas fractures. This system is the first to evaluate the severity of fractures based on the C1 articular facet and fracture displacement and strengthen the anatomy ring of the atlas. It is concise, easy to remember, reliable, and reproducible.
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.