ArticleThe Iowa orthopaedic journal2025
Objective Fluoroscopic Image-Based Assessment of Intraoperative Wire Navigation Skill Agrees with Subjective Expert Opinion.
Article in The Iowa orthopaedic journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: The current standard for assessing orthopedic technical skill demonstrated in operating room performance relies primarily on subjective evaluations administered by an expert mentor. This study demonstrates the utility of fluoroscopic image-based analysis as an objective mechanism for assessing technical proficiency for a common wire navigation procedure by comparing it for the first time to the gold standard in orthopedic skills assessment: subjective expert opinion. Methods: The final pin construct achieved during the closed reduction and percutaneous pinning of pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures was assessed for 23 operating room performances from fluoroscopic imaging to produce an objective ranking. Individual rank-orderings from six experts were independently aggregated into a consensus ranking for the same 23 performances. Inter-rater reliability of expert assessments was measured as Cronbach's α for individual rankings. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to evaluate relationships between individual expert rankings, a consensus ranking, and an algorithm ranking derived from objective scores. Results: The inter-rater reliability of the experts' individual rankings yielded an α of 0.78, exceeding the 0.70 threshold for acceptable reliability. There was strong agreement between the objective ranking and the expert consensus (R2 = 0.59), with the objective ranking agreement with consensus being superior to all but one individual expert. Conclusion: These findings suggest that objective fluoroscopic image-based analysis is an effective tool for assessing technical operating room performance and highlight its potential role as a complementary tool to expert assessment in orthopedic skills training. Clinical Relevance: While traditional assessments of intraoperative skill performance based on expert opinion remain important, they can be limited by cognitive biases and variability in feedback. The integration of objective metrics with expert consensus offers a more robust and scalable approach to skill assessment. This hybrid method has potential to complement subjective evaluations by facilitating more consistent and data-driven feedback, which can be particularly useful for training programs with limited mentor availability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40606727PMC12212316What 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.