↓ Skip to main content

Intra-observer and inter-observer errors in CT measurement of torsional profiles of lower limbs: a retrospective comparative study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Intra-observer and inter-observer errors in CT measurement of torsional profiles of lower limbs: a retrospective comparative study
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13018-015-0200-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Artemisia Panou, Dedorah Faith Stanitski, Carl Stanitski, Andrea Peccati, Nicola Marcello Portinaro

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine errors in measurement of torsional profiles (TP) (torsional femoral angle, torsional tibial angle, and femoral ankle angle) among four orthopedic surgeons, experts, and non-experts in measurement, and the learning curve. Twenty-six lower extremities of 13 patients with spastic diplegia candidates for femoral/tibial derotational osteotomy had preoperative bilateral computer tomography (CT) scan grams to establish the TP. Each measurement was done by four orthopedic surgeons, two experienced clinicians and interpreters of CT imaging and two with limited clinical and imaging assessment experiences. Images were blinded and the surgeons made three determinations at least 5 days apart; the three angles were measured each time for each limb. Intra-observer and inter-observer variability were determined using bias, standard deviation, and interclass correlation coefficient. Significant inter-observer variability and bias were noted between experts and non-experts (average variability: ICC experts: 0.88 ± 0.15; ICC non-experts: 0.91 ± 0.09). For non-experts, excessive bias (25° and 14°) was observed. An associated improvement in bias with additional measurement experience indicated a potential significant learning curve for interpreting these studies. Less inter-observer variability was observed between experts. Measurement of TP is a reliable tool when used by experienced personnel, and their use as a preoperative tool should be reserved to ones with experience with such image assessments. Non-experts' measurements produced a weak agreement when compared to experts'.

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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 21%
Other 2 14%
Lecturer 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 14%
Sports and Recreations 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%
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 15 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,331,767
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#645
of 1,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,437
of 264,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#16
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 264,753 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.