ArticleJournal of clinical imaging science2025
Ulnar variance - Reliability of three different methods of measurement.
Article in Journal of clinical imaging science, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Ulnar variance (UV), i.e., the length of the ulna relative to the radius is a radiographic measurement commonly used to estimate fracture compression of distal radius fractures. Different methods for measuring UV have been described in the literature. The aim of this study was to assess the inter- and intra-rater reliability of three different methods of measuring UV among raters with different professional backgrounds and levels of experience. Material and Methods: Nine raters, one musculoskeletal radiologist, three radiology residents, one PhD student, one medical student, and three reporting radiographers, participated in the study. They measured UV on 21 radiographs using three different measurement methods: The method of central reference point (CRP), the lateral method (LM), and the method of perpendiculars (MoP). Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), while intra-rater agreement was estimated using Bland-Altman (BA) analysis with limits of agreement (LoA). Results: Inter-rater reliability estimated by ICCs was 0.91, 0.96, and 0.97 for the methods of CRP, LM, and MoP, respectively. Intra-rater agreement, assessed by BA LoA for rater1/rater2, was ±2.94/±1.45, ±1.92/±2.36, and ±2.14/±1.33 for the methods of CRP, LM, and MoP, respectively. Conclusion: All three methods of measurement displayed excellent reliability with ICCs ranging from 0.91 to 0.97. The findings suggest that UV measurements can be reliably obtained across raters with different professional backgrounds and levels of experience using all three methods of measuring.
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.