↓ Skip to main content

Bone shortening of clavicular fractures: comparison of measurement methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Bone shortening of clavicular fractures: comparison of measurement methods
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1881-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. H. Thorsmark, P. Muhareb Udby, I. Ban, L. H. Frich

Abstract

The indication for operative treatment of clavicular fractures with bone shortening over 2 cm is much debated. Correct measurement of clavicular length is essential, and reliable measures of clavicular length are therefore highly requested by clinical decision-makers. The aim of this study was to investigate if three commonly scientifically used measurement methods were interchangeable to each other. A retrospective study using radiographs collected as part of a previous study on clavicular fractures. Two independent raters measured clavicle shortening on 60 patients using conventional radiographs on two separate sessions. The two measurement methods described by Hill et al. and Silva et al. were used on unilateral pictures. Side difference measurements according to Lazarides et al. were made on panoramic radiographs. The measurements were analyzed using intraclass correlation, Weir's protocol for Standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC), and Bland-Altman plots. None of the methods were directly interchangeable. The side difference method by Lazarides et al. was the most reliable of the three methods, but had a high proportion of post-fracture bone lengthening that indicated methodological problems. The Hill et al. and Silva et al. methods had high minimal detectable change, making their use unreliable. As all three measurement methods had either reliability or methodological issues, we found it likely that differences in measurement methods have caused the differences in clavicular length observed in scientific studies.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 11 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 55%
Unknown 13 45%