ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2026
The Reliability of Photograph-Based Digital Measurements for Assessing the Pediatric Elbow Range of Motion-A Pilot Study.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe follow-up for pediatric elbow injuries often involves in-office visits to assess the range of motion (ROM). There is evidence for the use of telemedicine and digital assessments of elbow motion in adults but none in pediatrics. The aim of this study was to compare measurements of the joint range of motion and elbow alignment in children, taken in a doctor's office, with those obtained from photographs and to evaluate the intra- and inter-observer reliability of these measurements.
methodsFourteen children were prospectively included in this study during follow-ups after an arm fracture. Only the uninjured arm was evaluated: goniometric measurements performed in the office were compared with digital measurements obtained from photographs. For the uninjured arm, in-office goniometer measurements were compared to picture-based digital measurements. Mean digital values were compared to in-office goniometer measurements using a paired
resultsWhen comparing photograph-based digital measurements to in-office goniometer measurements, the mean absolute error (average absolute difference between observer measurements and goniometer) showed differences of 4.5° for extension, 7.4° for flexion, and 4.8° for the carrying angle. The accuracy bias (average difference between observer measurements and goniometer) showed an overestimation of photographs for extension by 1.2°, an overestimation of photographs for flexion by 5.5°, and an underestimation of photographs for a carrying angle of 3.5°. Intra- and inter-rater reliability correlations were all within the good (0.75-0.9) to excellent (>0.9) ranges. The intra-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.91 for extension, 0.87 for flexion, and 0.87 for the carrying angle. The inter-rater ICC was 0.98 for extension, 0.93 for flexion, and 0.96 for the carrying angle.
conclusionsPhotograph-based digital measurements appear to be an acceptable alternative compared to in-office goniometer measurements in pediatric patients.
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.