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
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: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.1038/s41598-022-20908-y |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ029185904 |
---|
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 |
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 |