Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect

Abstract To design and investigate a comparison card to evaluate the glenoid bone defect compared with Sugaya method. 33 patients with bony Bankart lesions were included. The comparison card and Sugaya method were performed on two occasions by three participants. The intra-group correlation coeffici...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Liang Chen [verfasserIn] Yichong Zhang [verfasserIn] Yufeng Wu [verfasserIn] Jingyang Chen [verfasserIn] Zexin Hong [verfasserIn] Jiabao Ju [verfasserIn] Jianhai Chen [verfasserIn] Dawei Gao [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Scientific Reports - Nature Portfolio, 2011, 12(2022), 1, Seite 8
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:12 ; year:2022 ; number:1 ; pages:8

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ029185904

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ029185904
003	DE-627
005	20230502143737.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ029185904
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJa424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	0		\|a Liang Chen \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract To design and investigate a comparison card to evaluate the glenoid bone defect compared with Sugaya method. 33 patients with bony Bankart lesions were included. The comparison card and Sugaya method were performed on two occasions by three participants. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis and the inter-group correlation coefficient analysis of two measurements was performed. The concordance of the two methods was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. Firstly, the percentage of defect measured by Sugaya method was 10.32 ± 8.38, and the comparison card method was 10.26 ± 8.41, 10.15 ± 8.23, and 10.62 ± 8.48, separately. There was no statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The second measurement showed it was 10.37 ± 8.39 for Sugaya method, and 10.23 ± 8.37, 10.15 ± 8.35, 10.54 ± 8.49 for the comparison card, without a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). For the comparison card, the intra- and inter-observer ICC values were all < 0.75. In the first measurement, Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between the two methods (bias, −0.03; SD, 0.48; − 0.97– 0.91; 95% CI, − 0.1999– 0.1413). Agreement was also found between them (bias, 0.07; SD, 0.61; − 1.13– 1.26; 95% CI, − 0.1509– 0.2812) in the second measurement. The comparison card method has similar accuracy with Sugaya method, which is of great reliability and convenience.
653		0	\|a Medicine
653		0	\|a R
653		0	\|a Science
653		0	\|a Q
700	0		\|a Yichong Zhang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Yufeng Wu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Jingyang Chen \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Zexin Hong \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Jiabao Ju \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Jianhai Chen \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Dawei Gao \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Scientific Reports \|d Nature Portfolio, 2011 \|g 12(2022), 1, Seite 8 \|w (DE-627)663366712 \|w (DE-600)2615211-3 \|x 20452322 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:12 \|g year:2022 \|g number:1 \|g pages:8
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/a424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_171
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_381
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 12 \|j 2022 \|e 1 \|h 8

Indexfelder

author_variant	l c lc y z yz y w yw j c jc z h zh j j jj j c jc d g dg
matchkey_str	article:20452322:2022----::einnadaiaigcmaiocrmtofruniia
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y doi (DE-627)DOAJ029185904 (DE-599)DOAJa424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Liang Chen verfasserin aut Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract To design and investigate a comparison card to evaluate the glenoid bone defect compared with Sugaya method. 33 patients with bony Bankart lesions were included. The comparison card and Sugaya method were performed on two occasions by three participants. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis and the inter-group correlation coefficient analysis of two measurements was performed. The concordance of the two methods was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. Firstly, the percentage of defect measured by Sugaya method was 10.32 ± 8.38, and the comparison card method was 10.26 ± 8.41, 10.15 ± 8.23, and 10.62 ± 8.48, separately. There was no statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The second measurement showed it was 10.37 ± 8.39 for Sugaya method, and 10.23 ± 8.37, 10.15 ± 8.35, 10.54 ± 8.49 for the comparison card, without a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). For the comparison card, the intra- and inter-observer ICC values were all < 0.75. In the first measurement, Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between the two methods (bias, −0.03; SD, 0.48; − 0.97– 0.91; 95% CI, − 0.1999– 0.1413). Agreement was also found between them (bias, 0.07; SD, 0.61; − 1.13– 1.26; 95% CI, − 0.1509– 0.2812) in the second measurement. The comparison card method has similar accuracy with Sugaya method, which is of great reliability and convenience. Medicine R Science Q Yichong Zhang verfasserin aut Yufeng Wu verfasserin aut Jingyang Chen verfasserin aut Zexin Hong verfasserin aut Jiabao Ju verfasserin aut Jianhai Chen verfasserin aut Dawei Gao verfasserin aut In Scientific Reports Nature Portfolio, 2011 12(2022), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)663366712 (DE-600)2615211-3 20452322 nnns volume:12 year:2022 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_381 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2022 1 8
spelling	10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y doi (DE-627)DOAJ029185904 (DE-599)DOAJa424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Liang Chen verfasserin aut Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract To design and investigate a comparison card to evaluate the glenoid bone defect compared with Sugaya method. 33 patients with bony Bankart lesions were included. The comparison card and Sugaya method were performed on two occasions by three participants. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis and the inter-group correlation coefficient analysis of two measurements was performed. The concordance of the two methods was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. Firstly, the percentage of defect measured by Sugaya method was 10.32 ± 8.38, and the comparison card method was 10.26 ± 8.41, 10.15 ± 8.23, and 10.62 ± 8.48, separately. There was no statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The second measurement showed it was 10.37 ± 8.39 for Sugaya method, and 10.23 ± 8.37, 10.15 ± 8.35, 10.54 ± 8.49 for the comparison card, without a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). For the comparison card, the intra- and inter-observer ICC values were all < 0.75. In the first measurement, Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between the two methods (bias, −0.03; SD, 0.48; − 0.97– 0.91; 95% CI, − 0.1999– 0.1413). Agreement was also found between them (bias, 0.07; SD, 0.61; − 1.13– 1.26; 95% CI, − 0.1509– 0.2812) in the second measurement. The comparison card method has similar accuracy with Sugaya method, which is of great reliability and convenience. Medicine R Science Q Yichong Zhang verfasserin aut Yufeng Wu verfasserin aut Jingyang Chen verfasserin aut Zexin Hong verfasserin aut Jiabao Ju verfasserin aut Jianhai Chen verfasserin aut Dawei Gao verfasserin aut In Scientific Reports Nature Portfolio, 2011 12(2022), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)663366712 (DE-600)2615211-3 20452322 nnns volume:12 year:2022 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_381 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2022 1 8
allfields_unstemmed	10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y doi (DE-627)DOAJ029185904 (DE-599)DOAJa424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Liang Chen verfasserin aut Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract To design and investigate a comparison card to evaluate the glenoid bone defect compared with Sugaya method. 33 patients with bony Bankart lesions were included. The comparison card and Sugaya method were performed on two occasions by three participants. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis and the inter-group correlation coefficient analysis of two measurements was performed. The concordance of the two methods was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. Firstly, the percentage of defect measured by Sugaya method was 10.32 ± 8.38, and the comparison card method was 10.26 ± 8.41, 10.15 ± 8.23, and 10.62 ± 8.48, separately. There was no statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The second measurement showed it was 10.37 ± 8.39 for Sugaya method, and 10.23 ± 8.37, 10.15 ± 8.35, 10.54 ± 8.49 for the comparison card, without a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). For the comparison card, the intra- and inter-observer ICC values were all < 0.75. In the first measurement, Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between the two methods (bias, −0.03; SD, 0.48; − 0.97– 0.91; 95% CI, − 0.1999– 0.1413). Agreement was also found between them (bias, 0.07; SD, 0.61; − 1.13– 1.26; 95% CI, − 0.1509– 0.2812) in the second measurement. The comparison card method has similar accuracy with Sugaya method, which is of great reliability and convenience. Medicine R Science Q Yichong Zhang verfasserin aut Yufeng Wu verfasserin aut Jingyang Chen verfasserin aut Zexin Hong verfasserin aut Jiabao Ju verfasserin aut Jianhai Chen verfasserin aut Dawei Gao verfasserin aut In Scientific Reports Nature Portfolio, 2011 12(2022), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)663366712 (DE-600)2615211-3 20452322 nnns volume:12 year:2022 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_381 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2022 1 8
allfieldsGer	10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y doi (DE-627)DOAJ029185904 (DE-599)DOAJa424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Liang Chen verfasserin aut Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract To design and investigate a comparison card to evaluate the glenoid bone defect compared with Sugaya method. 33 patients with bony Bankart lesions were included. The comparison card and Sugaya method were performed on two occasions by three participants. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis and the inter-group correlation coefficient analysis of two measurements was performed. The concordance of the two methods was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. Firstly, the percentage of defect measured by Sugaya method was 10.32 ± 8.38, and the comparison card method was 10.26 ± 8.41, 10.15 ± 8.23, and 10.62 ± 8.48, separately. There was no statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The second measurement showed it was 10.37 ± 8.39 for Sugaya method, and 10.23 ± 8.37, 10.15 ± 8.35, 10.54 ± 8.49 for the comparison card, without a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). For the comparison card, the intra- and inter-observer ICC values were all < 0.75. In the first measurement, Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between the two methods (bias, −0.03; SD, 0.48; − 0.97– 0.91; 95% CI, − 0.1999– 0.1413). Agreement was also found between them (bias, 0.07; SD, 0.61; − 1.13– 1.26; 95% CI, − 0.1509– 0.2812) in the second measurement. The comparison card method has similar accuracy with Sugaya method, which is of great reliability and convenience. Medicine R Science Q Yichong Zhang verfasserin aut Yufeng Wu verfasserin aut Jingyang Chen verfasserin aut Zexin Hong verfasserin aut Jiabao Ju verfasserin aut Jianhai Chen verfasserin aut Dawei Gao verfasserin aut In Scientific Reports Nature Portfolio, 2011 12(2022), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)663366712 (DE-600)2615211-3 20452322 nnns volume:12 year:2022 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_381 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2022 1 8
allfieldsSound	10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y doi (DE-627)DOAJ029185904 (DE-599)DOAJa424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Liang Chen verfasserin aut Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract To design and investigate a comparison card to evaluate the glenoid bone defect compared with Sugaya method. 33 patients with bony Bankart lesions were included. The comparison card and Sugaya method were performed on two occasions by three participants. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis and the inter-group correlation coefficient analysis of two measurements was performed. The concordance of the two methods was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. Firstly, the percentage of defect measured by Sugaya method was 10.32 ± 8.38, and the comparison card method was 10.26 ± 8.41, 10.15 ± 8.23, and 10.62 ± 8.48, separately. There was no statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The second measurement showed it was 10.37 ± 8.39 for Sugaya method, and 10.23 ± 8.37, 10.15 ± 8.35, 10.54 ± 8.49 for the comparison card, without a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). For the comparison card, the intra- and inter-observer ICC values were all < 0.75. In the first measurement, Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between the two methods (bias, −0.03; SD, 0.48; − 0.97– 0.91; 95% CI, − 0.1999– 0.1413). Agreement was also found between them (bias, 0.07; SD, 0.61; − 1.13– 1.26; 95% CI, − 0.1509– 0.2812) in the second measurement. The comparison card method has similar accuracy with Sugaya method, which is of great reliability and convenience. Medicine R Science Q Yichong Zhang verfasserin aut Yufeng Wu verfasserin aut Jingyang Chen verfasserin aut Zexin Hong verfasserin aut Jiabao Ju verfasserin aut Jianhai Chen verfasserin aut Dawei Gao verfasserin aut In Scientific Reports Nature Portfolio, 2011 12(2022), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)663366712 (DE-600)2615211-3 20452322 nnns volume:12 year:2022 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_381 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2022 1 8
language	English
source	In Scientific Reports 12(2022), 1, Seite 8 volume:12 year:2022 number:1 pages:8
sourceStr	In Scientific Reports 12(2022), 1, Seite 8 volume:12 year:2022 number:1 pages:8
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Medicine R Science Q
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Scientific Reports
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Liang Chen @@aut@@ Yichong Zhang @@aut@@ Yufeng Wu @@aut@@ Jingyang Chen @@aut@@ Zexin Hong @@aut@@ Jiabao Ju @@aut@@ Jianhai Chen @@aut@@ Dawei Gao @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	663366712
id	DOAJ029185904
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ029185904</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502143737.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ029185904</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJa424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Liang Chen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract To design and investigate a comparison card to evaluate the glenoid bone defect compared with Sugaya method. 33 patients with bony Bankart lesions were included. The comparison card and Sugaya method were performed on two occasions by three participants. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis and the inter-group correlation coefficient analysis of two measurements was performed. The concordance of the two methods was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. Firstly, the percentage of defect measured by Sugaya method was 10.32 ± 8.38, and the comparison card method was 10.26 ± 8.41, 10.15 ± 8.23, and 10.62 ± 8.48, separately. There was no statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The second measurement showed it was 10.37 ± 8.39 for Sugaya method, and 10.23 ± 8.37, 10.15 ± 8.35, 10.54 ± 8.49 for the comparison card, without a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). For the comparison card, the intra- and inter-observer ICC values were all < 0.75. In the first measurement, Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between the two methods (bias, −0.03; SD, 0.48; − 0.97– 0.91; 95% CI, − 0.1999– 0.1413). Agreement was also found between them (bias, 0.07; SD, 0.61; − 1.13– 1.26; 95% CI, − 0.1509– 0.2812) in the second measurement. The comparison card method has similar accuracy with Sugaya method, which is of great reliability and convenience.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Science</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Q</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yichong Zhang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yufeng Wu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jingyang Chen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zexin Hong</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jiabao Ju</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jianhai Chen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dawei Gao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Scientific Reports</subfield><subfield code="d">Nature Portfolio, 2011</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2022), 1, Seite 8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)663366712</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2615211-3</subfield><subfield code="x">20452322</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/a424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_381</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Liang Chen
spellingShingle	Liang Chen misc Medicine misc R misc Science misc Q Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect
authorStr	Liang Chen
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)663366712
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	20452322
topic_title	Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect
topic	misc Medicine misc R misc Science misc Q
topic_unstemmed	misc Medicine misc R misc Science misc Q
topic_browse	misc Medicine misc R misc Science misc Q
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Scientific Reports
hierarchy_parent_id	663366712
hierarchy_top_title	Scientific Reports
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)663366712 (DE-600)2615211-3
title	Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ029185904 (DE-599)DOAJa424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64
title_full	Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect
author_sort	Liang Chen
journal	Scientific Reports
journalStr	Scientific Reports
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	8
author_browse	Liang Chen Yichong Zhang Yufeng Wu Jingyang Chen Zexin Hong Jiabao Ju Jianhai Chen Dawei Gao
container_volume	12
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Liang Chen
doi_str_mv	10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect
title_auth	Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect
abstract	Abstract To design and investigate a comparison card to evaluate the glenoid bone defect compared with Sugaya method. 33 patients with bony Bankart lesions were included. The comparison card and Sugaya method were performed on two occasions by three participants. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis and the inter-group correlation coefficient analysis of two measurements was performed. The concordance of the two methods was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. Firstly, the percentage of defect measured by Sugaya method was 10.32 ± 8.38, and the comparison card method was 10.26 ± 8.41, 10.15 ± 8.23, and 10.62 ± 8.48, separately. There was no statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The second measurement showed it was 10.37 ± 8.39 for Sugaya method, and 10.23 ± 8.37, 10.15 ± 8.35, 10.54 ± 8.49 for the comparison card, without a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). For the comparison card, the intra- and inter-observer ICC values were all < 0.75. In the first measurement, Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between the two methods (bias, −0.03; SD, 0.48; − 0.97– 0.91; 95% CI, − 0.1999– 0.1413). Agreement was also found between them (bias, 0.07; SD, 0.61; − 1.13– 1.26; 95% CI, − 0.1509– 0.2812) in the second measurement. The comparison card method has similar accuracy with Sugaya method, which is of great reliability and convenience.
abstractGer	Abstract To design and investigate a comparison card to evaluate the glenoid bone defect compared with Sugaya method. 33 patients with bony Bankart lesions were included. The comparison card and Sugaya method were performed on two occasions by three participants. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis and the inter-group correlation coefficient analysis of two measurements was performed. The concordance of the two methods was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. Firstly, the percentage of defect measured by Sugaya method was 10.32 ± 8.38, and the comparison card method was 10.26 ± 8.41, 10.15 ± 8.23, and 10.62 ± 8.48, separately. There was no statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The second measurement showed it was 10.37 ± 8.39 for Sugaya method, and 10.23 ± 8.37, 10.15 ± 8.35, 10.54 ± 8.49 for the comparison card, without a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). For the comparison card, the intra- and inter-observer ICC values were all < 0.75. In the first measurement, Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between the two methods (bias, −0.03; SD, 0.48; − 0.97– 0.91; 95% CI, − 0.1999– 0.1413). Agreement was also found between them (bias, 0.07; SD, 0.61; − 1.13– 1.26; 95% CI, − 0.1509– 0.2812) in the second measurement. The comparison card method has similar accuracy with Sugaya method, which is of great reliability and convenience.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract To design and investigate a comparison card to evaluate the glenoid bone defect compared with Sugaya method. 33 patients with bony Bankart lesions were included. The comparison card and Sugaya method were performed on two occasions by three participants. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis and the inter-group correlation coefficient analysis of two measurements was performed. The concordance of the two methods was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. Firstly, the percentage of defect measured by Sugaya method was 10.32 ± 8.38, and the comparison card method was 10.26 ± 8.41, 10.15 ± 8.23, and 10.62 ± 8.48, separately. There was no statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The second measurement showed it was 10.37 ± 8.39 for Sugaya method, and 10.23 ± 8.37, 10.15 ± 8.35, 10.54 ± 8.49 for the comparison card, without a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). For the comparison card, the intra- and inter-observer ICC values were all < 0.75. In the first measurement, Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between the two methods (bias, −0.03; SD, 0.48; − 0.97– 0.91; 95% CI, − 0.1999– 0.1413). Agreement was also found between them (bias, 0.07; SD, 0.61; − 1.13– 1.26; 95% CI, − 0.1509– 0.2812) in the second measurement. The comparison card method has similar accuracy with Sugaya method, which is of great reliability and convenience.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_381 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect
url	https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y https://doaj.org/article/a424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64 https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322
remote_bool	true
author2	Yichong Zhang Yufeng Wu Jingyang Chen Zexin Hong Jiabao Ju Jianhai Chen Dawei Gao
author2Str	Yichong Zhang Yufeng Wu Jingyang Chen Zexin Hong Jiabao Ju Jianhai Chen Dawei Gao
ppnlink	663366712
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y
up_date	2024-07-03T21:37:29.295Z
_version_	1803595441029251073
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ029185904</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502143737.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ029185904</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJa424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Liang Chen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract To design and investigate a comparison card to evaluate the glenoid bone defect compared with Sugaya method. 33 patients with bony Bankart lesions were included. The comparison card and Sugaya method were performed on two occasions by three participants. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis and the inter-group correlation coefficient analysis of two measurements was performed. The concordance of the two methods was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. Firstly, the percentage of defect measured by Sugaya method was 10.32 ± 8.38, and the comparison card method was 10.26 ± 8.41, 10.15 ± 8.23, and 10.62 ± 8.48, separately. There was no statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The second measurement showed it was 10.37 ± 8.39 for Sugaya method, and 10.23 ± 8.37, 10.15 ± 8.35, 10.54 ± 8.49 for the comparison card, without a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). For the comparison card, the intra- and inter-observer ICC values were all < 0.75. In the first measurement, Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between the two methods (bias, −0.03; SD, 0.48; − 0.97– 0.91; 95% CI, − 0.1999– 0.1413). Agreement was also found between them (bias, 0.07; SD, 0.61; − 1.13– 1.26; 95% CI, − 0.1509– 0.2812) in the second measurement. The comparison card method has similar accuracy with Sugaya method, which is of great reliability and convenience.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Science</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Q</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yichong Zhang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yufeng Wu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jingyang Chen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zexin Hong</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jiabao Ju</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jianhai Chen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dawei Gao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Scientific Reports</subfield><subfield code="d">Nature Portfolio, 2011</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2022), 1, Seite 8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)663366712</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2615211-3</subfield><subfield code="x">20452322</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/a424a88e2cce49259caad913ea59be64</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_381</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.398486

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Designing and validating a comparison card method for quantification of glenoid bone defect

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?