↓ Skip to main content

The inter- and intra-rater reliability of the Maestro and Barroco metatarsal length measurement techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
The inter- and intra-rater reliability of the Maestro and Barroco metatarsal length measurement techniques
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13047-018-0289-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zainab Ali, Hassan Karim, Navid Wali, Reza Naraghi

Abstract

The relationship between metatarsal length and various forefoot pathologies is a topic of contention in Orthopaedics. The results of such investigations have been shown to depend on the method of metatarsal length measurement used. The aim of this study was to assess the inter- and intra-rater reliability of the Maestro and Barroco metatarsal length measurement techniques. A retrospective and quantitative study was performed on 15 randomly selected radiographs to determine the reliability of the two measurement techniques across all five metatarsals (M1 to M5). This was done at one week apart for three weeks by three raters. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and the 95% lower confidence limit (95% LCL) were calculated. The Maestro and Barroco techniques produced high to very high ICC vlaues for length measurements across all metatarsals. The 95% lower confidence limit for inter-rater measurements ranged between 0.92-0.98 for Maestro's and 0.86-0.99 for Barroco's technique. For intra-rater measurements the 95% LCL ranged between 0.83-0.99 for Maestro's and 0.75-0.99 for Barroco's technique. Our study found that both the Maestro and Barroco methods of measurements produced high to very high inter- and intra-rater reliability. Both methods may be suitable for the use of peri-operative planning and clinical research relating metatarsal length and forefoot pathology. Besides having a more simplistic method of application, the novel Barroco technique is comparable to the more established Maestro method in both repeatability and reproducibility.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 40%
Student > Postgraduate 1 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 20%
Unspecified 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 20%
Unspecified 1 20%

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 17 August 2018.
All research outputs
#8,385,396
of 13,384,384 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#443
of 538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,619
of 270,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,384,384 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 270,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them