ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2025
Inter- and Intra-Observer Reliability of the New Comprehensive Classification of Intertrochanteric Fracture of the Femur.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Novel Radiographic Classification of the Proximal Tibiofibular Joint.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability of a Novel Classification System for Distal Radioulnar Joint Instability.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Improved YOLOv8 with average pooling downsampling for detection and classification of intertrochanteric femoral fractures in X-ray images: a study focusing on AO/OTA classification.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the reliability of the new Comprehensive Classification in clinical practice by comparing it with Evans-Jensen (1975), AO/OTA (2007), and AO/OTA (2018). Methods: A total of 192 patients with intertrochanteric fractures were included in the study. The fractures were classified using the Comprehensive Classification system and the three traditional methods by eight observers, consisting of four high-experienced and four less-experienced surgeons. Interobserver and intraobserver agreements were assessed using kappa statistics and compared across the different classification systems. Results: The study included 192 patients. The average inter-observer Kappa values using CT scan for Evans-Jensen (1975), AO/OTA (2007), AO/OTA (2018), and Comprehensive Classification were 0.361 ± 0.06, 0.348 ± 0.05, 0.408 ± 0.06, and 0.492 ± 0.02, respectively. The average inter-observer Kappa values based on 3DR were 0.411 ± 0.04, 0.396 ± 0.03, 0.442 ± 0.03, and 0.524 ± 0.03, respectively. The average intra-observer Kappa values using CT scan were 0.467 ± 0.05, 0.453 ± 0.06, 0.542 ± 0.04, and 0.631 ± 0.02, respectively. The average intra-observer Kappa values using 3DR were 0.503 ± 0.05, 0.482 ± 0.03, 0.561 ± 0.03, and 0.672 ± 0.02, respectively. The mean kappa value of Inter- and intra-observer for the Comprehensive Classification were higher than Evans-Jensen (1975) and AO/OTA (2007/2018) using CT scans and 3DR (P < 0.05). Additionally, the high-experienced group using 3DR had the highest agreement, at approximately 75.86%, when comparing the implant type corresponding to the fracture classification evaluated by the observer with the implant type selected by the observer. Conclusion: The Comprehensive Classification system emerges as a reliable and superior tool for the classification of intertrochanteric fractures, offering improved agreement rates and practical treatment insights compared to traditional methods. This classification has guiding significance for treatment.
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.