ArticleMedeniyet medical journal2026
Diagnostic Performance and Reproducibility of Odontoid Retroflexion Angle and Posterior Basion-C2 Line in Type II Basilar Invagination.
Article in Medeniyet medical journal, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the diagnostic performance and interobserver reproducibility of the odontoid retroflexion angle (ORA) and posterior basion-C2 (pB-C2) line in adult patients with type II basilar invagination (BI), using the odontoid apex-Chamberlain line distance (OA-CL) as the reference standard. Methods: This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study included adult patients with type II BI who underwent cranial magnetic resonance imaging between January 2015 and September 2021, along with age- and sex-matched control participants. Two blinded observers performed measurements on midline sagittal images. ORA and pB-C2 were evaluated as index tests, and OA-CL was the reference standard. Interobserver agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Group comparisons were performed using Student's t-test. The diagnostic performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: The study included 33 patients with BI and 34 controls. The OA-CL demonstrated excellent interobserver agreement (ICC=0.98),whereas the ORA showed moderate agreement (ICC=0.69), and pB-C2 showed good agreement (ICC=0.82). ORA was significantly lower and pB-C2 was significantly higher in patients than in controls (p<0.001 for both). ROC analysis revealed moderate diagnostic performance for ORA (AUC=0.79) and pB-C2 (AUC=0.77). Conclusions: Although ORA and pB-C2 differed significantly between patients with type II BI and controls, both parameters demonstrated limited reproducibility and moderate diagnostic performance. These measurements should be considered complementary morphometric descriptors rather than primary diagnostic markers of BI.
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.