Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41404597›Full record

ArticleJSES international2026

The "angle" method of calculating glenoid bone loss: a validation study and review of current methods.

Lewis L Shi, James S MacLeod, Nicholas H Maassen, Marcus Allen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JSES international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lewis L ShiDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, The University of Chicago, Chicaco, IL, USA.
James S MacLeodThe Medical College of Wisconsin, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Nicholas H MaassenDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, The University of Chicago, Chicaco, IL, USA.
Marcus AllenDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, The University of Chicago, Chicaco, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hypothesis/Background: This study compares our "angle" method to the "best-fit circle" method and examines existing literature on glenoid bone loss measurement. We hypothesized that the "angle" method of calculating glenoid bone loss would perform comparably to the "best-fit circle" method. Methods: The "angle" method calculates bone loss by subtracting the area of the triangle placed along the length of the defect from the sector subtended by the arc of the bone defect and is an adaptation of the Lederman ratio to estimate glenoid bone loss. To validate our method, we measured glenoid bone loss on 26 shoulder computed tomography scans using both the "angle" and "best-fit circle" methods. All patients had the diagnosis of anterior shoulder instability and had a computed tomography arthrogram performed due to suspected bone loss; those with glenohumeral arthritis were excluded. Results: Twenty-six patients were included. The glenoid bone loss measured using the "angle" method was 17.5% (standard deviation [SD], 7) on average, while the "best-fit circle" method yielded 23.2% (SD, 7). The mean difference between the 2 methods was 5.4% ( Conclusion: The "angle" method of calculating glenoid bone loss predicts a 5.4% decreased absolute bone loss than the commonly used "best-fit circle" method and shows high intra-rater reliability, with a correlation coefficient of 0.965-0.995.

Indexed as

Angle methodBankartBest-fit circleBone lossGlenoidLatarjet

Identifiers

PMID41404597
PMCPMC12704053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.