ArticleScientific reports2026
Automatic measurements of volar tilt and radial inclination of the distal radius on 3D models: validation against manual methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- The impact of two-dimensional and three-dimensional computed tomography on the decision to operate in distal radius fractures: a multicenter survey-based study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
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
Assessing distal radius malunions traditionally relies on measuring volar tilt and radial inclination in 2D radiographs. Reliability of these parameters is limited by projection errors and landmark ambiguity. Using 3D models allows more precise quantification of these parameters. This study validated an algorithm for measuring volar tilt and radial inclination on 3D virtual models of malunited and healthy radii. The algorithm establishes a 3D coordinate system and anatomical landmarks replicating conventional 2D definitions to maintain clinical compatibility. Automatic 3D measurements on models from 16 participants were compared with manual measurements on 2D radiographs (by three surgeons in consensus) and on 3D models (by two independent raters). Agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, and landmark discrepancies were quantified. Mean differences between automatic 3D and manual 2D measurements were small: for volar tilt, 2.0° in malunited and 3.5° in healthy radii; for radial inclination, 1.5° and 2.3°, respectively. Strong agreement was also found between automatic and manual 3D measurements. Landmark deviations ranged from 0.5 to 2.8 mm, with an average longitudinal axis difference of 2.5°. This open-source algorithm provides a reproducible 3D assessment of distal radius alignment. By closely matching 2D standards, the algorithm has a high potential for clinical integration.
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.