ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Mechanical axis image quality of the EOS imaging system compared to digital radiographs.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare mechanical axis image quality between the EOS imaging system and digital radiograph (DR). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 100 patients who underwent both EOS and DR mechanical axis imaging. It was conducted according to the Quality and Standards Department at the University of Sheffield. Three observers independently scored the DR and EOS images according to the modified European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images in paediatrics: resolution, coverage of the area of interest, positioning, contrast, and motion. The range of scores was (Yes) for the fulfilled criterion and (No) for the not fulfilled criterion. For the motion criterion, the scores were (No) if the image quality criterion was not fulfilled (motion) and (Yes) if the image quality criterion was fulfilled (no motion). Inter-rater agreement was measured using the Gwet's agreement coefficient (AC1) with a 95% confidence interval. The accuracy of the EOS was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, and the area under curve (AUC). Variables between the EOS and DR were compared using McNemar's test. Both Gwet's AC1 and corresponding 95%CI were computed using irrCAC library in R4.41 software.
resultsThe mean (range) age of patients when they underwent DR and EOS imaging was 11.2 (4-18) and 11.8 (5-17) years, respectively. EOS demonstrated almost perfect inter-rater reliability in the resolution criterion (AC1 = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.98,1.00, p < 0.001), while DR showed similar reliability in the motion artefacts (AC1 = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.92.00, p < 0.001). Intra-rater reliability was high for most criteria. EOS images demonstrated high sensitivity for all criteria and variable specificity, which equalled or exceeded that of DR images. Significant differences were found in some criteria, such as the coverage of the area of interest (chi-squared = 37.39, p < 0.001) and hip level (chi-squared statistic = 31.44, p < 0.001).
conclusionThe high AC1, sensitivity, and AUCs highlight the diagnostic image quality of the EOS imaging system for mechanical axis images, making it a valuable modality in clinical settings. Therefore, the EOS imaging system can be used instead of DR in this context, offering advantages such as lower irradiation, shorter scanning time, and the capability for 3D reconstruction.
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.