ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2025
Glenoid-version-measurement methods on magnetic resonance imaging: accuracy and reliability analysis.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 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.
- Prevalence of os acromiale and concomitant rotator cuff tears: a focused assessment of 3697 shoulder magnetic resonance imagings.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Glenoid-version-measurement methods were initially defined for computed tomography (CT) but are now used for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, their accuracy and reliability on MRI have not been thoroughly investigated. The aim was to determine the accuracy of these methods on MRI and compare their reliability, hypothesizing that MRI could provide accurate measurements similar to CT using all 3 methods, with the Matsumura method having the highest reliability. Methods: Glenoid-version measurements of 40 patients (14 female, 26 males; mean age 46.5 ± 17.9 years) with glenohumeral instability were performed using the Friedman, Poon and Ting, and Matsumura methods on MRI. These measurements were compared to those on 3-dimensional corrected slices of CT scans to evaluate accuracy. Reliability was assessed by 2 observers who repeated MRI measurements after 2 months. Results: All methods demonstrated favorable accuracy. The Friedman and Matsumura methods exhibited good interobserver reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.78 (0.58-0.88) and 0.89 (0.79-0.94)], while the Poon and Ting method showed moderate reliability [ICC=0.71 (0.44-0.84)]. Intraobserver reliability was excellent for the Matsumura method [Observer 1 ICC=0.96 (0.93-0.98), Observer 2 ICC=0.86 (0.95-0.99)], good for Friedman [Observer 1 ICC=0.77 (0.57-0.88), Observer 2 ICC=0.82 (0.67-0.91)], and moderate to good for Poon and Ting [Observer 1 ICC=0.68 (0.39-0.83), Observer 2 ICC=0.82 (0.65-0.9)]. Conclusion: All 3 methods can be used confidently for MRI measurements, matching the accuracy of CT scans. The Friedman and Matsumura methods demonstrated higher interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities. Level of evidence: Level III, diagnostic study.
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.