Key result
Three measurement methods for shoulder deformities in OBPL showed interobserver reliability with kappa 0.52-0.64 for glenoid form and standard deviations of differences up to 12.4°, without bias.
Why the study?
What is the interobserver reliability of three established MRI measurement methods for secondary shoulder deformities in children with obstetric brachial plexus lesion?
Observational (n=29)
What is the interobserver reliability of three established MRI measurement methods for secondary shoulder deformities in children with obstetric brachial plexus lesion?
Three established MRI measurement methods for secondary shoulder deformities in children with OBPL showed moderate to good interobserver reliability with no systematic bias.
Supports cautious clinical use of these MRI methods for OBPL shoulder assessment; leaves open need for refined protocols to boost reliability.
In this study the interobserver reliability of three established measurement methods to objectify secondary deformities of the shoulder in obstetric brachial plexus lesion was evaluated (OBPL). Magnet resonance imaging scans of 30 affected shoulders of 29 OBPL children, mean age 1 year 9 months (range 3 months to 6.3 years) were used. The reliability of the measurement of glenoid version had a standard deviation of differences of measurements between 5.4 and 5.9°. The reliability of the glenoid form showed a kappa value between 0.52 and 0.64, and the reliability of the humeral subluxation had a standard deviation between 7.7 and 12.4°. The measurement methods showed no systematic bias.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sluijs et al. (2003) conducted an observational in Obstetric brachial plexus lesion (OBPL) (n=29). Three established measurement methods was evaluated on Interobserver reliability of measurement methods. Three measurement methods for shoulder deformities in OBPL showed interobserver reliability with kappa 0.52-0.64 for glenoid form and standard deviations of differences up to 12.4°, without bias.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: