ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Surgeon experience and measurement method influence consistency of glenoid bone loss assessment: a three-dimensional printing, computed tomography, and arthroscopy comparison.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy of arthroscopic glenoid bone loss (GBL) assessment and its influencing factors, and to compare the consistency of three-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) and 3D printed measurements.
methods3D printed models were created from the 3D CT images. Experts reviewed arthroscopic images to assess GBL, and a questionnaire was used to correlate assessment accuracy with surgeon age, experience, and annual surgical volume. Separately, ten residents measured each model three times using three methods: the linear method and best-fit circle method on 3D CT, and a manual method with vernier calipers on the physical models. Agreement was calculated using intra-group correlation coefficients (ICC).
resultsA statistically significant difference in assessment accuracy was found among surgeons with different annual surgical volumes (p = 0.029). Comparisons between the three measurement methods showed that the best-fit circle method yielded significantly higher values than both the linear and manual methods (p < 0.001). The manual method demonstrated the highest consistency across different times and observers (ICC 0.998 and 0.995, respectively), suggesting it is the most stable technique.
conclusionThe accuracy of arthroscopic GBL judgment varies with the surgeon’s annual surgical volume. While all three measurement methods show excellent agreement, the best-fit circle method provides significantly larger GBL measurements compared to the linear and manual methods. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Cross-Sectional 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.