Reliability and discriminative accuracy of 5 measures for craniocaudal humeral position an assessment on conventional radiographs

Reliability and discriminative accuracy of 5 measures for craniocaudal humeral position : an assessment on conventional radiographs

© 2019 The Authors.

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JSES international. - 2020. - 4(2020), 1 vom: 01. März, Seite 189-196
1. Verfasser: Kolk, Arjen (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Overbeek, Celeste L, de Groot, Jurriaan H, Nelissen, Rob G H H, Nagels, Jochem
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2020
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:JSES international
Schlagworte:Journal Article Rotator cuff radiography reliability (epidemiology) rotator cuff tears shoulder supraspinatus
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:© 2019 The Authors.
HYPOTHESIS: This study aimed to examine the reliability and diagnostic discriminative accuracy of 5 different methods that quantity the craniocaudal humeral position with respect to the scapula on conventional radiographs
METHODS: In this retrospective, cross-sectional diagnostic study, 2 observers randomly assessed the conventional anteroposterior shoulder radiographs of 280 subjects with rotator cuff imaging for the (1) acromiohumeral (AH) interval, (2) upward migration index (UMI), (3) glenohumeral center-to-center measurement (GHCC), (4) glenohumeral arc measurement (GHa), and (5) scapular spine-humeral head center method (SHC). Reliability was assessed by means of relative consistency (intraclass correlation coefficient) and absolute consistency. Discriminative accuracy for detecting a rotator cuff tear was calculated
RESULTS: Relative consistency (intraclass correlation coefficient) for the AH interval, UMI, GHCC, GHa, and SHC was 0.961, 0.913, 0.806, 0.924, and 0.726, respectively. The AH interval had the highest absolute consistency with a random residual measurement error of 0.58 mm compared with 1.0-3.2 mm for the other measurements. The discriminative accuracy of the AH interval did not significantly differ from that of the UMI (-0.010; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.042 to 0.022; P = .545) but was significantly better than that of the GHCC (0.112; 95% CI, 0.043-0.181; P = .001), GHa (0.074; 95% CI, 0.009-0.139; P = .027), and SHC (0.178; 95% CI, 0.100-0.256; P < .001)
CONCLUSION: Assessment of the craniocaudal humeral position is performed with good to excellent intraobserver and interobserver reliability. The discriminative accuracy for detecting a rotator cuff tear on a single radiograph was highest for the AH interval and UMI. We recommend using the AH interval or UMI as an indirect measure of the presence of a rotator cuff tear on conventional radiographs
Beschreibung:Date Revised 13.04.2022
published: Electronic-eCollection
Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE
ISSN:2666-6383
DOI:10.1016/j.jseint.2019.11.005