ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2026
Automated vs Manual Measurement of Middle Facet Subluxation in Progressive Collapsing Foot Deformity Using Weightbearing CT.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peritalar subluxation (PTS) is a key driver of symptomatic progression in progressive collapsing foot deformity (PCFD). Middle facet subluxation (MFS) is an established weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT) parameter to quantify PTS, but manual measurement is time consuming and dependent on rotation and slice selection. Automated WBCT-based tools may streamline measurement and improve reproducibility. Methods: Retrospective, institutional review board-approved study including 66 PCFD patients and 25 normally aligned controls. Manual MFS (mMFS) was measured by 2 fellowship-trained surgeons, repeated for intra- and interrater reliability. Automated MFS (aMFS) was calculated using a developer-level version of BoneLogic (Disior). Agreement was assessed using paired tests, correlations, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: In PCFD, no significant difference was found between mMFS and aMFS (36.4% ± 15.2% vs 37.4% ± 20.7%, Conclusion: This study evaluates agreement between manual and a predominantly automated WBCT-based MFS measurement. Automated MFS showed moderate to good agreement and interchangeability with manual methods in PCFD, whereas agreement was limited in controls. These findings support the potential clinical and research utility of automated MFS in PCFD class D assessment, following external validation. Level of Evidence: Level III, diagnostic study.
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.