| Title |
Glenoid version by CT scan: an analysis of clinical measurement error and introduction of a protocol to reduce variability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Skeletal Radiology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00256-015-2207-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fabian van de Bunt, Michael L. Pearl, Eric K. Lee, Lauren Peng, Paul Didomenico |
| Abstract |
Recent studies have challenged the accuracy of conventional measurements of glenoid version. Variability in the orientation of the scapula from individual anatomical differences and patient positioning, combined with differences in observer measurement practices, have been identified as sources of variability. The purpose of this study was to explore the utility and reliability of clinically available software that allows manipulation of three-dimensional images in order to bridge the variance between clinical and anatomic version in a clinical setting. Twenty CT scans of normal glenoids of patients who had proximal humerus fractures were measured for version. Four reviewers first measured version in a conventional manner (clinical version), measurements were made again (anatomic version) after employing a protocol for reformatting the CT data to align the coronal and sagittal planes with the superior-inferior axis of the glenoid, and the scapular body, respectively. The average value of clinical retroversion for all reviewers and all subjects was -1.4° (range, -16° to 21°), as compared to -3.2° (range, -21° to 6°) when measured from reformatted images. The mean difference between anatomical and clinical version was 1.9° ± 5.6° but ranged on individual measurements from -13° to 26°. In no instance did all four observers choose the same image slice from the sequence of images. This study confirmed the variation in glenoid version dependent on scapular orientation previously identified in other studies using scapular models, and presents a clinically accessible protocol to correct for scapular orientation from the patient's CT data. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 20% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Psychology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 19 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 June 2017.
All research outputs
#4,214,277
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Skeletal Radiology
#177
of 1,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,046
of 264,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Skeletal Radiology
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,476 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 264,153 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.