ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Reliability of radiographic knee and hip osteoarthritis classification between radiologists and orthopaedic surgeons.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOsteoarthritis (OA) is a common and disabling joint condition that requires accurate assessment for effective management. Variability in radiographic classification of OA severity can impact diagnostic accuracy and treatment decisions. This study evaluates the interobserver reliability of radiographic grading systems for hip and knee OA severity.
methodsThis retrospective study included 576 patients diagnosed with hip or knee OA between 2016 and 2023 who underwent radiographic evaluation. Radiographs were independently scored by three orthopaedic surgeons and three radiologists using established classification systems (Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L), Croft for hip; K-L, Ahlbäck, Brandt and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) for knee OA). Interobserver agreement was assessed using kappa statistics.
resultsA total of 296 hip OA patients (mean age 69.5 ± 8.7, 62% female, 67% underwent surgery) and 280 knee OA patients (mean age 69.8 ± 8.4 years, 41% female, 53% underwent surgery) were assessed. For hip OA, interobserver agreement was moderate using K-L (κ = 0.552) and Croft (κ = 0.468). For knee OA, moderate agreement was found for the KL (κ = 0.598) and Ahlbäck (κ = 0.463), and substantial for Brandt (κ = 0.625), and OARSI (κ = 0.648) classifications. Overall, radiologists assigned higher OA severity scores than orthopaedic surgeons.
conclusionThis study shows fair to moderate agreement between orthopaedic surgeons and radiologists in diagnosing hip and knee OA. Based on our data, we recommend the Kellgren-Lawrence as the grading system for lower extremity osteoarthritis. However, grading minute osteophytes and early-stage osteoarthritis remains challenging.
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.