ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Acute glenoid rim fractures: reliability of linear and surface area methods for CT-based bone loss assessment.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe wanted to investigate and compare the reliability of two measuring methods for glenoid bone loss, one linear- and one surface area method, in acute glenoid fractures after dislocation. This was an experimental study.
methodThirty CT-shoulder scans in patients with an acute glenoid rim fracture were measured in a lateral"en face" view in 2D and 3D by two independent assessors. In 10 of 30 patients contralateral shoulder CT-scan was obtained for reference circle placement. Intra- and interrater reliability was analysed by Intra Class Correlation. Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed for comparison of bone loss estimates between methods.
resultsThe reliability ranged from 0.85 to 0.97 for the two methods in both 2D and 3D, which is considered good to excellent. The bone loss estimates were significantly larger with linear method than area method. Drawing of a best-fitting-circle had a good reliability between assessors.
conclusionsLinear- and surface area methods demonstrated comparable reliability in assessing glenoid bone loss in acute fractures and we found no difference between 2D- and 3D-modalities. However, linear methods may overestimate defect in cases with irregular fracture lines, suggesting area method may be preferable in acute fractures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42864519What 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.