Reliability and reproducibility of radiographic interpretation of proximal humeral fracture pathoanatomy

Recent studies have demonstrated inconsistencies in the use of certain images for classifying proximal humerus fractures. Our purpose was to determine whether three-dimensional computed tomography or the level of expertise of the observers would improve the reliability and reproducibility of identif...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 1997-01, Vol.6 (1), p.60-69
Hauptverfasser: Sallay, Peter I, Pedowitz, Robert A, Mallon, William J, Vandemark, Robert M, Dalton, James D, Speer, Kevin P
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 69
container_issue 1
container_start_page 60
container_title Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery
container_volume 6
creator Sallay, Peter I
Pedowitz, Robert A
Mallon, William J
Vandemark, Robert M
Dalton, James D
Speer, Kevin P
description Recent studies have demonstrated inconsistencies in the use of certain images for classifying proximal humerus fractures. Our purpose was to determine whether three-dimensional computed tomography or the level of expertise of the observers would improve the reliability and reproducibility of identifying specific anatomic fragments in proximal humerus fractures. Two groups of observers, nonexperts and experts in shoulder surgery, were asked to review the radiographs and three-dimensional computed tomography scans of 12 patients with proximal humerus fractures. Observers were asked to identify displaced fracture fragments, dislocation, and articular surface fractures. Both groups of observers displayed suboptimal reliability for the identification of displaced fracture fragments. The addition of three-dimensional computed tomography scans did not improve the reliability or reproducibility. Poor agreement for the purpose of classification seems to occur at the most fundament level, the pathoanatomic description of the fracture. Inconsistencies may have been due to imprecise identification and measurement of individual fracture fragments, differing interpretations of the pathoanatomy, or both.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S1058-2746(97)90072-0
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78883952</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1058274697900720</els_id><sourcerecordid>78883952</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-d32748d571b94c222ce8f431d01a11aa01bd427b1fddcfa80966ecf30d92e2173</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtr3DAQx0VJ2KSbfIQFn0JycDuSH7JOpSzpAxYCSXsWsjTuKtiWI8mh--2jfbTXnGaY_39eP0JWFD5RoPXnJwpVkzNe1reC3wkAznL4QC5pVbC8rgDOUv7PckE-hvAMAKIEtiALAZzWTXlJto_YW9Xa3sZdpkaTeZy8M7O2p5rrMq-MdX-8mrZWZ3aM6CePUUXrxr2c_H_toPpsOw_oU-y80nH2mE0qbp0aVXTD7oqcd6oPeH2KS_L72_2v9Y988_D95_rrJtdFDTE3RTq3MRWnrSg1Y0xj05UFNUAVpUoBbU3JeEs7Y3SnGhB1jborwAiGjPJiSW6Oc9NZLzOGKAcbNPa9GtHNQfKmaQpRsWSsjkbtXQgeOzn59IbfSQpyT1geCMs9Pim4PBCWkPpWpwVzO6D533VCmvQvRx3Tl68WvQza4qjRWI86SuPsOxveAEVEje4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>78883952</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reliability and reproducibility of radiographic interpretation of proximal humeral fracture pathoanatomy</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Sallay, Peter I ; Pedowitz, Robert A ; Mallon, William J ; Vandemark, Robert M ; Dalton, James D ; Speer, Kevin P</creator><creatorcontrib>Sallay, Peter I ; Pedowitz, Robert A ; Mallon, William J ; Vandemark, Robert M ; Dalton, James D ; Speer, Kevin P</creatorcontrib><description>Recent studies have demonstrated inconsistencies in the use of certain images for classifying proximal humerus fractures. Our purpose was to determine whether three-dimensional computed tomography or the level of expertise of the observers would improve the reliability and reproducibility of identifying specific anatomic fragments in proximal humerus fractures. Two groups of observers, nonexperts and experts in shoulder surgery, were asked to review the radiographs and three-dimensional computed tomography scans of 12 patients with proximal humerus fractures. Observers were asked to identify displaced fracture fragments, dislocation, and articular surface fractures. Both groups of observers displayed suboptimal reliability for the identification of displaced fracture fragments. The addition of three-dimensional computed tomography scans did not improve the reliability or reproducibility. Poor agreement for the purpose of classification seems to occur at the most fundament level, the pathoanatomic description of the fracture. Inconsistencies may have been due to imprecise identification and measurement of individual fracture fragments, differing interpretations of the pathoanatomy, or both.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-2746</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-6500</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S1058-2746(97)90072-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9071684</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Humans ; Humeral Fractures - diagnostic imaging ; Humeral Fractures - pathology ; Observer Variation ; Reproducibility of Results ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><ispartof>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 1997-01, Vol.6 (1), p.60-69</ispartof><rights>1997</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-d32748d571b94c222ce8f431d01a11aa01bd427b1fddcfa80966ecf30d92e2173</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-d32748d571b94c222ce8f431d01a11aa01bd427b1fddcfa80966ecf30d92e2173</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1058-2746(97)90072-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9071684$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sallay, Peter I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pedowitz, Robert A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mallon, William J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vandemark, Robert M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalton, James D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Speer, Kevin P</creatorcontrib><title>Reliability and reproducibility of radiographic interpretation of proximal humeral fracture pathoanatomy</title><title>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</title><addtitle>J Shoulder Elbow Surg</addtitle><description>Recent studies have demonstrated inconsistencies in the use of certain images for classifying proximal humerus fractures. Our purpose was to determine whether three-dimensional computed tomography or the level of expertise of the observers would improve the reliability and reproducibility of identifying specific anatomic fragments in proximal humerus fractures. Two groups of observers, nonexperts and experts in shoulder surgery, were asked to review the radiographs and three-dimensional computed tomography scans of 12 patients with proximal humerus fractures. Observers were asked to identify displaced fracture fragments, dislocation, and articular surface fractures. Both groups of observers displayed suboptimal reliability for the identification of displaced fracture fragments. The addition of three-dimensional computed tomography scans did not improve the reliability or reproducibility. Poor agreement for the purpose of classification seems to occur at the most fundament level, the pathoanatomic description of the fracture. Inconsistencies may have been due to imprecise identification and measurement of individual fracture fragments, differing interpretations of the pathoanatomy, or both.</description><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Humeral Fractures - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Humeral Fractures - pathology</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><issn>1058-2746</issn><issn>1532-6500</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtr3DAQx0VJ2KSbfIQFn0JycDuSH7JOpSzpAxYCSXsWsjTuKtiWI8mh--2jfbTXnGaY_39eP0JWFD5RoPXnJwpVkzNe1reC3wkAznL4QC5pVbC8rgDOUv7PckE-hvAMAKIEtiALAZzWTXlJto_YW9Xa3sZdpkaTeZy8M7O2p5rrMq-MdX-8mrZWZ3aM6CePUUXrxr2c_H_toPpsOw_oU-y80nH2mE0qbp0aVXTD7oqcd6oPeH2KS_L72_2v9Y988_D95_rrJtdFDTE3RTq3MRWnrSg1Y0xj05UFNUAVpUoBbU3JeEs7Y3SnGhB1jborwAiGjPJiSW6Oc9NZLzOGKAcbNPa9GtHNQfKmaQpRsWSsjkbtXQgeOzn59IbfSQpyT1geCMs9Pim4PBCWkPpWpwVzO6D533VCmvQvRx3Tl68WvQza4qjRWI86SuPsOxveAEVEje4</recordid><startdate>199701</startdate><enddate>199701</enddate><creator>Sallay, Peter I</creator><creator>Pedowitz, Robert A</creator><creator>Mallon, William J</creator><creator>Vandemark, Robert M</creator><creator>Dalton, James D</creator><creator>Speer, Kevin P</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199701</creationdate><title>Reliability and reproducibility of radiographic interpretation of proximal humeral fracture pathoanatomy</title><author>Sallay, Peter I ; Pedowitz, Robert A ; Mallon, William J ; Vandemark, Robert M ; Dalton, James D ; Speer, Kevin P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-d32748d571b94c222ce8f431d01a11aa01bd427b1fddcfa80966ecf30d92e2173</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Humeral Fractures - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Humeral Fractures - pathology</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sallay, Peter I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pedowitz, Robert A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mallon, William J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vandemark, Robert M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalton, James D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Speer, Kevin P</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sallay, Peter I</au><au>Pedowitz, Robert A</au><au>Mallon, William J</au><au>Vandemark, Robert M</au><au>Dalton, James D</au><au>Speer, Kevin P</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reliability and reproducibility of radiographic interpretation of proximal humeral fracture pathoanatomy</atitle><jtitle>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Shoulder Elbow Surg</addtitle><date>1997-01</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>60</spage><epage>69</epage><pages>60-69</pages><issn>1058-2746</issn><eissn>1532-6500</eissn><abstract>Recent studies have demonstrated inconsistencies in the use of certain images for classifying proximal humerus fractures. Our purpose was to determine whether three-dimensional computed tomography or the level of expertise of the observers would improve the reliability and reproducibility of identifying specific anatomic fragments in proximal humerus fractures. Two groups of observers, nonexperts and experts in shoulder surgery, were asked to review the radiographs and three-dimensional computed tomography scans of 12 patients with proximal humerus fractures. Observers were asked to identify displaced fracture fragments, dislocation, and articular surface fractures. Both groups of observers displayed suboptimal reliability for the identification of displaced fracture fragments. The addition of three-dimensional computed tomography scans did not improve the reliability or reproducibility. Poor agreement for the purpose of classification seems to occur at the most fundament level, the pathoanatomic description of the fracture. Inconsistencies may have been due to imprecise identification and measurement of individual fracture fragments, differing interpretations of the pathoanatomy, or both.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>9071684</pmid><doi>10.1016/S1058-2746(97)90072-0</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1058-2746
ispartof Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 1997-01, Vol.6 (1), p.60-69
issn 1058-2746
1532-6500
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78883952
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Humans
Humeral Fractures - diagnostic imaging
Humeral Fractures - pathology
Observer Variation
Reproducibility of Results
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
title Reliability and reproducibility of radiographic interpretation of proximal humeral fracture pathoanatomy
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T07%3A53%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reliability%20and%20reproducibility%20of%20radiographic%20interpretation%20of%20proximal%20humeral%20fracture%20pathoanatomy&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20shoulder%20and%20elbow%20surgery&rft.au=Sallay,%20Peter%20I&rft.date=1997-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=60&rft.epage=69&rft.pages=60-69&rft.issn=1058-2746&rft.eissn=1532-6500&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S1058-2746(97)90072-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E78883952%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=78883952&rft_id=info:pmid/9071684&rft_els_id=S1058274697900720&rfr_iscdi=true