PortalPublikationenFour distal radial fracture classification systems tested am...

Four distal radial fracture classification systems tested amongst a large panel of Dutch trauma surgeons

Standard

Four distal radial fracture classification systems tested amongst a large panel of Dutch trauma surgeons. / Ploegmakers, Joris J W; Mader, Konrad; Pennig, Dietmar; Verheyen, Cees C P M.

in: INJURY, Jahrgang 38, Nr. 11, 11.2007, S. 1268-72.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung

Harvard

Ploegmakers, JJW, Mader, K, Pennig, D & Verheyen, CCPM 2007, 'Four distal radial fracture classification systems tested amongst a large panel of Dutch trauma surgeons', INJURY, Jg. 38, Nr. 11, S. 1268-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2007.03.032

APA

Ploegmakers, J. J. W., Mader, K., Pennig, D., & Verheyen, C. C. P. M. (2007). Four distal radial fracture classification systems tested amongst a large panel of Dutch trauma surgeons. INJURY, 38(11), 1268-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2007.03.032

Vancouver

Ploegmakers JJW, Mader K, Pennig D, Verheyen CCPM. Four distal radial fracture classification systems tested amongst a large panel of Dutch trauma surgeons. INJURY. 2007 Nov;38(11):1268-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2007.03.032

Bibtex

@article{600a222b8b6e49778d3e328370194b70,
title = "Four distal radial fracture classification systems tested amongst a large panel of Dutch trauma surgeons",
abstract = "Five different radiographs of distal radial fractures were classified according to the AO/ASIF, Frykman, Fernandez and Older systems by 45 observers (trauma surgeons and residents). The same panel classified the same radiographs in a different order 4 months later. Mean interobserver correlation for all cases was fair to moderate according to the Spearman rank test. However, these classifications showed poor correlation with the gold standard as classified by the senior author. All intraobserver agreements demonstrated a moderate kappa agreement (K(w)=0.52) for the AO/ASIF classification and fair for the Frykman (K(w)=0.26), Fernandez (K(w)=0.24) and Older (K(w)=0.27) classifications. When the group was divided according to years of clinical experience (<6 years; >or=6 years), there was poor correlation between experience and consistency amongst all four classifications. In view of these findings, we do not recommend use of these classifications for clinical application because of their questionable reproducibility and reliability.",
keywords = "Follow-Up Studies, General Surgery, Humans, Observer Variation, Professional Practice, Radiography, Radius Fractures, Journal Article",
author = "Ploegmakers, {Joris J W} and Konrad Mader and Dietmar Pennig and Verheyen, {Cees C P M}",
year = "2007",
month = nov,
doi = "10.1016/j.injury.2007.03.032",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "1268--72",
journal = "INJURY",
issn = "0020-1383",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "11",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Four distal radial fracture classification systems tested amongst a large panel of Dutch trauma surgeons

AU - Ploegmakers, Joris J W

AU - Mader, Konrad

AU - Pennig, Dietmar

AU - Verheyen, Cees C P M

PY - 2007/11

Y1 - 2007/11

N2 - Five different radiographs of distal radial fractures were classified according to the AO/ASIF, Frykman, Fernandez and Older systems by 45 observers (trauma surgeons and residents). The same panel classified the same radiographs in a different order 4 months later. Mean interobserver correlation for all cases was fair to moderate according to the Spearman rank test. However, these classifications showed poor correlation with the gold standard as classified by the senior author. All intraobserver agreements demonstrated a moderate kappa agreement (K(w)=0.52) for the AO/ASIF classification and fair for the Frykman (K(w)=0.26), Fernandez (K(w)=0.24) and Older (K(w)=0.27) classifications. When the group was divided according to years of clinical experience (<6 years; >or=6 years), there was poor correlation between experience and consistency amongst all four classifications. In view of these findings, we do not recommend use of these classifications for clinical application because of their questionable reproducibility and reliability.

AB - Five different radiographs of distal radial fractures were classified according to the AO/ASIF, Frykman, Fernandez and Older systems by 45 observers (trauma surgeons and residents). The same panel classified the same radiographs in a different order 4 months later. Mean interobserver correlation for all cases was fair to moderate according to the Spearman rank test. However, these classifications showed poor correlation with the gold standard as classified by the senior author. All intraobserver agreements demonstrated a moderate kappa agreement (K(w)=0.52) for the AO/ASIF classification and fair for the Frykman (K(w)=0.26), Fernandez (K(w)=0.24) and Older (K(w)=0.27) classifications. When the group was divided according to years of clinical experience (<6 years; >or=6 years), there was poor correlation between experience and consistency amongst all four classifications. In view of these findings, we do not recommend use of these classifications for clinical application because of their questionable reproducibility and reliability.

KW - Follow-Up Studies

KW - General Surgery

KW - Humans

KW - Observer Variation

KW - Professional Practice

KW - Radiography

KW - Radius Fractures

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1016/j.injury.2007.03.032

DO - 10.1016/j.injury.2007.03.032

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 17643439

VL - 38

SP - 1268

EP - 1272

JO - INJURY

JF - INJURY

SN - 0020-1383

IS - 11

ER -