ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
Reliability and reproducibility of classification of distal ulnar fractures using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeDistal ulnar fractures (DUFs) remain under-investigated, primarily due to limited statistical power resulting from the low incidence. The present classification systems are difficult to use and are not validated for new radiological methods such as cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). We aimed to analyze the reliability and reproducibility of the 2 classification systems, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen foundation/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) and Biyani, for fractures of the distal ulnar head and neck using CBCT images.
methods76 patients with DUF who underwent a CBCT scan during the years 2016-2022 were included retrospectively. The CBCT images were reviewed twice by 6 observers of different medical specialties and levels of experience. All fractures were classified according to AO/OTA and Biyani. The reliability and reproducibility of each classification system were analyzed using kappa value analysis.
resultsThe reliability was fair to moderate for AO/OTA, Light's ĸ 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.45) and moderate for Biyani, Light's ĸ 0.45 (CI 0.42-0.49), and the reproducibility was substantial for both AO/OTA, mean ĸ 0.65 (CI 0.49-0.80), and Biyani, ĸ 0.69 (CI 0.60-0.79).
conclusionBoth existing classification systems were perceived to be difficult to use and do not match existing fracture patterns. Using CBCT images, they both showed substantial reproducibility but not satisfactory reliability for clinical use.
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.