ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Discordance among skeletal maturity indicators: sources, interpretation, and clinical implications.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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
Bone age and regional skeletal maturity staging are widely used to identify growth stage, estimate remaining growth, and support orthopedic treatment decisions in children and adolescents. However, skeletal maturity indicators differ in the regions examined, developmental features observed, scoring rules applied, and reference standards used. Consequently, the same child may receive different age estimates or maturity classifications when a different bone group, anatomical region, imaging modality, or assessment method is selected. This narrative review synthesizes evidence from within-image bone-group comparisons, contemporaneous cross-regional assessments, disease and local-intervention studies, mechanistic research, and validation against clinical outcomes. We organize the evidence according to the information represented by each measure and the outcome against which it has been evaluated. Discordance may arise from the imaging and assessment process itself, including modality, scoring method, method version, and population-specific reference standards. It may also reflect regional differences in growth plate responses to systemic signals, prior growth history, and local mechanical conditions. Animal, cellular, and tissue studies support the biological plausibility of site-specific responses, but they do not quantify the magnitude or sequence of regional differences in children. The clinical value of a skeletal maturity indicator must therefore be established separately for the outcome it is intended to inform, such as peak height velocity, adult height, actual growth of a target bone segment, scoliosis progression, or treatment outcome. High correlation between indicators or a small mean difference at the group level does not ensure close agreement within an individual child. Future research should prioritize contemporaneous paired assessments, longitudinal multiregional cohorts, reporting of individual-level differences and stage reclassification, and multicenter external validation. These approaches can help clarify how discordance should be interpreted and whether its magnitude is sufficient to alter a specific clinical judgment.
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.