ArticleAmerican journal of biological anthropology2025
Measurement Error in Osteometric, Photographic, and Virtual Methodologies to Quantify the Torsional Profile of the Lower Limb.
Article in American journal of biological anthropology, 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.
- Measurement Error in Osteometric, Photographic, and Virtual Methodologies to Quantify the Torsional Profile of the Lower Limb.American journal of biological anthropology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe torsional profile of the lower limb consists of femoral torsion, tibial torsion, and talar neck angle. Due to high levels of inter-individual variation and a lack of defining landmarks, these variables are difficult to precisely measure. It is important to ensure torsional profile measurement methodologies are repeatable, so that studies evaluating these variables can be compared. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo observers collected torsional profile and linear measurements from the femur, tibia, and talus of 20 individuals using osteometric, photographic, and virtual methodologies. Intra- and interobserver error were assessed using the technical error of measurement (TEM), %TEM, and coefficient of reliability. Comparability between methods was evaluated using correlations, reduced major axis regression, and reduced mean squared error. Two methods for measuring the torsional profile were compared: a landmark method and a shape-fitting method.
resultsObserver error was low for linear measurements. Torsional profile measurements have higher intra- and interobserver error and lower comparability between methods than linear measurements. Shape-fitting methods for femoral torsion lowered observer error but did not improve methodological comparability. Shape-fitting methods for tibial torsion did not substantially alter observer error but improved method comparability. Shape-fitting methods for talar neck angle greatly improved method comparability, but not observer error. DISCUSSION: Linear measurements have low observer error and are highly comparable between osteometric and virtual methods. There is greater observer error and lower comparability between measurement modalities for angular measurements. Shape-fitting is a promising way to reduce observer error when measuring the torsional profile.
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.