CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 428Bone fractures and treatmentsReliability and Agreement in MeasurementTrauma and Emergency Care Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development of the Radiographic Union Score for Tibial Fractures for the Assessment of Tibial Fracture Healing After Intramedullary Fixation

Whelan, Daniel B., Bhandari, Mohit, Stephen, David, Kreder, Hans, McKee, Michael D., Zdero, Rad, Schemitsch, Emil H.·2010·Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection & Critical Care
DOI 10.1097/ta.0b013e3181a7c16d
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: : The objective was to evaluate the newly developed Radiographic Union Score for Tibial fractures (RUST). Because there is no "gold standard," it was hypothesized that the RUST score would provide substantial improvements compared with previous scores presented in the literature. METHODS: : Forty-five sets of X-rays of tibial shaft fractures treated with intramedullary fixation were selected. Seven orthopedic reviewers independently scored bony union using RUST. Radiographs were reassessed at 9 weeks. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) measured agreement. RESULTS: : Overall agreement was substantial (ICC, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.91). There was improved reliability among traumatologists compared with others (ICC = 0.86, 0.81, and 0.83, respectively). Overall intraobserver reliability was also substantial (ICC, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: : The RUST score exhibits substantial improvements in reliability from previously published scores and produces equally reproducible results among a variety of orthopedic specialties and experience levels. Because no "gold standards" currently exist against which RUST can be compared, this study provides only the initial step in the score's full validation for use in a clinical context.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ta.0b013e3181a7c16d

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Duwelius, 1995, Nonreamed interlocked intramedullary tibial nailing. One community's experience., Clin Orthop Relat Res, 315, 104

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Whelan, D. B., Bhandari, M., Stephen, D., Kreder, H., McKee, M. D., Zdero, R., & Schemitsch, E. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection & Critical Care
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2010-03
Volume
68
Issue
3
Pages
629-632
ISSN
0022-5282 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/ta.0b013e3181a7c16d
OpenAlex
W2016662879
Cited by
428
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone fractures and treatments
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Keywords
tibial shaft fractures, fracture healing, intramedullary fixation, radiographic scoring, inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary, Fractures, Ununited, Humans, Internship and Residency, Orthopedics, Radiography, Tibial Fractures, Traumatology, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Fracture Healing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review