↓ Skip to main content

Reliability of radiographic measurements for acute distal radius fractures

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Imaging, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reliability of radiographic measurements for acute distal radius fractures
Published in
BMC Medical Imaging, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12880-016-0147-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Narelle J. Watson, Saeed Asadollahi, Frank Parrish, Jacqueline Ridgway, Phong Tran, Jennifer L. Keating

Abstract

The management of distal radial fractures is guided by the interpretation of radiographic findings. The aim of this investigation was to determine the intra- and inter-observer reliability of eight traditionally reported anatomic radiographic parameters in adults with an acute distal radius fracture. Five observers participated. All were routinely involved in making treatment decisions based on distal radius fracture radiographs. Observers performed independent repeated measurements on 30 radiographs for eight anatomical parameters: dorsal shift (mm), intra-articular gap (mm), intra-articular step (mm), palmar tilt (degrees), radial angle (degrees), radial height (mm), radial shift (mm), ulnar variance (mm). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the magnitude of retest errors were calculated. Measurement reliability was summarised as high (ICC > 0.80), moderate (0.60-0.80) or low (<0.60). Intra-observer reliability was high for dorsal shift and palmar tilt; moderate for radial angle, radial height, ulnar variance and radial shift; and low for intra-articular gap and step. Inter-observer reliability was high for palmar tilt; moderate for dorsal shift, ulnar variance, radial angle and radial height; and low for radial shift, intra-articular gap and step. Error magnitude (95 % confidence interval) was within 1-2 mm for intra-articular gap and step, 2-4 mm for ulnar variance, 4-6 mm for radial shift, dorsal shift and radial height, and 6-8° for radial angle and palmar tilt. Based on previous reports of critical values for palmar tilt, ulnar variance and radial angle, error margins appear small enough for measurements to be useful in guiding treatment decisions. Our findings indicate that clinicians cannot reliably measure values ≤1 mm for intra-articular gap and step when interpreting radiographic parameters using the standardised methods investigated in this study. As a guide for treatment selection, palmar tilt, ulnar variance and radial angle measurements may be useful, but intra-articular gap and step appear unreliable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Other 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 16 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 44%
Linguistics 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,466,238
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#368
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,286
of 364,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.