ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
A simple maximum intensity projection method for measuring proximal femoral anteversion: An observer reliability study.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Quantifying femoral neck anteversion (FNA) is essential in lower limb torsional deformities. Because of proximal femur anatomy and computed tomography (CT) acquisition, the femoral head and neck are often visualized on different slices, making identification of the femoral-head-neck axis (FHNA) challenging. This study introduces a new method based on the maximum intensity projection (MIP) function available in most DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) viewers. By increasing the thickness of the bone segment displayed on a single two-dimensional image, MIP allows simultaneous visualization of the femoral head and neck, simplifying FHNA identification. To evaluate intra- and interobserver reliability of the MIP method and compare it with established techniques. The hypothesis was that MIP would provide superior repeatability and reproducibility than other techniques. Methods: Between 2019 and 2023, 135 consecutive bilateral lower limb CT angiographies were retrospectively screened. A calculated sample size of 50 patients meeting the inclusion criteria was chronologically enroled. Radiographic measurements were performed at Time 0 and after 30 days by two independent observers following a calibrated training phase. FNA was measured using five methods: Murphy, Hernandez, Waidelich, Yoshioka and MIP. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were evaluated using a two-way random-effects, single-measures, absolute-agreement intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC (2,1)] model, alongside standard error of measurement (SEM). For pairwise comparisons of estimated marginal means derived from the linear mixed-effects model, Tukey's honestly significant difference adjustment was applied. For pairwise comparisons of bootstrap-derived ICC differences, Results: Fifty CT angiographies were analysed. Mean FNA values were significantly different among most methods (Murphy: 18.4° ± 7.2; Waidelich: 24.6° ± 7.4; Yoshioka: 11.5° ± 7.8; Hernandez: 10.7° ± 7.1; MIP: 13.7° ± 6.2) The proposed MIP method demonstrated high intraobserver repeatability (Observer 1: ICC = 0.97; Observer 2: ICC = 0.95) and interobserver reproducibility (ICC = 0.84 for single-measure absolute agreement). Bland-Altman analysis revealed method-dependent non-interchangeability, with systematic differences between techniques. Conclusions: The MIP technique simplifies identification of the FHNA and demonstrated the highest overall reproducibility among the evaluated CT-based methods. It could therefore represent a practical approach for improving the standardization of FNA assessment. Level of Evidence: Level III, diagnostic study.
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.