ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Magnetic resonance imaging measurement of the femoral antetorsional angle: Comparison with computer tomography and clinical application in a diagnostic algorithm.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Assessment and management of torsional malalignment in paediatric patients with patellofemoral joint instability.Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging measurement of the femoral antetorsional angle: Comparison with computer tomography and clinical application in a diagnostic algorithm.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare five different femoral torsion measurement methods using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and to develop an MRI-based rotational profiling technique that is comparable to and as repeatable as CT. Study Design Diagnostic Study Methods: This prospective study evaluates patients who underwent lower limb rotational profile assessment by MRI and CT between June 2022 and October 2023. Five different measurement methods (Reikerås, Lee, Tomczak, Murphy and Jarrett) were compared to determine the best agreement. The Reikerås method was selected and further evaluated for intraobserver and interobserver reliability, as well as the learning curve, using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Reliability was assessed using ICCs, while agreement was evaluated through Bland-Altman analysis. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with the area under the curve (AUC) was performed. Results: ICCs for the agreement between MRI and CT measurements indicated strong reliability (0.904 ± 0.022). The ICCs for intraobserver and interobserver reliability were 0.887 ± 0.026 and 0.871 ± 0.0471, respectively. Bland-Altman plots revealed a mean difference of -0.98° with limits of agreement ranging from -7.89° to 5.93°. The optimal cut-off point for CT referral was calculated based on ROC curve analysis of MR-based femoral torsion assessment, identified using the Youden index, at 19.67°, with an AUC of 0.998 ± 0.003, indicating excellent diagnostic accuracy. The learning curve showed an optimal ICC > 0.966 after 63 readings. Conclusion: The Reikerås MRI measurement method could replace CT, especially in the paediatric population, as it has shown high agreement, comparable reliability and reproducibility. The cut-off point for this method is 19.67°. Level of Evidence: Level II.
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.