↓ Skip to main content

Reliability of measurements performed on two dimensional and three dimensional computed tomography in glenoid assessment for instability

Overview of attention for article published in International Orthopaedics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Reliability of measurements performed on two dimensional and three dimensional computed tomography in glenoid assessment for instability
Published in
International Orthopaedics, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00264-016-3253-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Maria Kubicka, Jakub Stefaniak, Przemysław Lubiatowski, Jan Długosz, Marcin Dzianach, Marcin Redman, Janusz Piontek, Leszek Romanowski

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to establish which of two methods is more reliable in glenoid assessment for instability in pre-operative planning. Accordingly, we have studied the intra- and inter-observer reliability of glenoid parameters with the use of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed computed tomography (CT) images. One hundred glenoids were measured with the use of 2D-CT and 3D-CT (in 3D orientation) by two independent observers (one experienced and one inexperienced). Measurements were repeated after one week for 30 randomly selected glenoids. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter-observer reliability was significantly greater for 3D-CT (0.811 to 0.915) than for 2D-CT (0.523 to 0.925). All intra-observer reliability values for 3D-CT were near perfect (0.835 to 0.997), while those for 2D-CT were less reliable (0.704 to 0.960). A dependent t-test showed that, for both observers, almost all glenoid parameters (except R and d) differed significantly (p < 0.05) between 2D and 3D measurement methods. Therefore, it can be concluded that 3D glenoid reconstructions are more reliable for glenoid bone loss assessment than 2D-CT. The results suggest that quantifying a glenoid defect with the use of 2D image only-even if performed by an experienced orthopaedic surgeon-is prone to errors. Differences in measurements between and within observers can be explained by plane setting and identifying glenoid rim in 2D-CT. Accordingly, we recommend that glenoid measurements should be performed in 3D orientation using 3D reconstruction obtained from CT images for pre-operative assessments, which are crucial for surgical planning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Professor 2 6%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 November 2016.
All research outputs
#13,242,345
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from International Orthopaedics
#741
of 1,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,446
of 366,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Orthopaedics
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,435 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 366,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.