ArticleCureus2026
Reliability of Acromiohumeral Interval Measurement on Nonstandardized Shoulder Radiographs by Reporting Radiographers: A Retrospective Service Evaluation.
Article in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe acromiohumeral interval (AHI) on shoulder radiographs is widely used as an indirect marker of chronic rotator cuff (RC) pathology, but routine anteroposterior (AP) radiographs are often nonstandardized, and reliability in day-to-day reporting is uncertain. This service evaluation assessed inter- and intraobserver reliability of AHI measurement by reporting radiographers and examined correspondence with ultrasound for identifying clinically significant RC tears.
methodsSeventy-three nonstandardized AP shoulder radiographs from a UK NHS Trust atraumatic shoulder pathway (age 18-70 years) with a Trust-performed shoulder ultrasound report within six months were independently assessed by three reporting radiographers. Each observer measured AHI (mm, one decimal place) and recorded the Hamada grade; measurements were repeated after two weeks. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Measurement error was quantified using the standard error of measurement (SEM) and the minimal detectable change at 95% confidence (MDC95). Ultrasound reports were dichotomized as positive for full-thickness (complete) or massive RC tear and negative for partial-thickness tear, tendinopathy, or no tear. Radiographs were dichotomized as AHI ≤6.0 mm (positive) vs. >6.0 mm (negative).
resultsIntraobserver reliability was good to excellent (ICC, 0.88-0.98 (good to excellent)). Interobserver reliability was excellent in Trial 1 (ICC, 0.95 (excellent)) and good to excellent in Trial 2 (ICC, 0.92 (good to excellent)). SEM was <1 mm, and MDC95 was approximately 1.6-2.4 mm. The Hamada agreement was weak to moderate. Using the definitions above, AHI ≤6.0 mm showed a mean sensitivity of 42% and a mean specificity of 94% (mean across observers and trials), with an overall accuracy above 70%.
conclusionsReporting radiographers measured AHI on nonstandardized AP radiographs with good-to-excellent reliability. Although sensitivity is limited (as expected for an indirect marker of advanced disease), high specificity supports AHI ≤6.0 mm as a rule-in feature for chronic full-thickness or massive RC tears. Standardized landmark guidance and focused training on common pitfalls (arm abduction, os acromiale) may further improve consistency.
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.