• <xmp id="1ykh9"><source id="1ykh9"><mark id="1ykh9"></mark></source></xmp>
      <b id="1ykh9"><small id="1ykh9"></small></b>
    1. <b id="1ykh9"></b>

      1. <button id="1ykh9"></button>
        <video id="1ykh9"></video>
      2. west china medical publishers
        Author
        • Title
        • Author
        • Keyword
        • Abstract
        Advance search
        Advance search

        Search

        find Author "GUO Qingshan" 1 results
        • Study on the consistency of trauma orthopedic surgeons in applying the 2007 and 2018 AO/OTA classifications for intertrochanteric femoral fractures

          Objective To compare the inter-observer agreement, consistency with the gold standard, and accuracy of the 2007 and 2018 versions of the AO/OTA classification in femoral intertrochanteric fractures, and to identify easily confused fracture types. Methods X-ray images of patients with femoral intertrochanteric fractures at Daping Hospital, Army Medical University between 2017 and 2021 were retrospectively collected. Three senior orthopedic trauma surgeons independently classified the fractures using both the 2007 and 2018 AO/OTA versions. A committee of five experts established the gold standard. Kappa coefficients were used to evaluate inter-observer agreement and consistency with the gold standard, while a confusion matrix was used to analyze accuracy and confusion points. Results A total of 236 patients were included. Regarding inter-observer agreement, the 2007 version was superior to the 2018 version at the subtype level [Kappa value: (0.473-0.739) vs. (0.322-0.658)], with no significant difference at the subgroup level [Kappa value: (0.234-0.453) vs. (0.204-0.442)]. Regarding consistency with the gold standard, the 2018 version was slightly better than the 2007 version [Kappa value: (0.332-0.629) vs. (0.269-0.581)] at the subgroup level. In terms of accuracy, the 2007 version showed higher accuracy at the subtype level (72.50% vs. 70.11%), whereas the 2018 version demonstrated better accuracy at the subgroup level (59.04% vs. 51.99%). The most easily confused subtypes in both versions were A1 and A2. At the subgroup level, A2.2 was the most easily confused type in both versions. Conclusions There is inconsistency in the application of both classification versions by surgeons. The 2007 version demonstrates slightly better inter-observer agreement at the subtype level, while the 2018 version shows better accuracy at the subgroup level. The A2.2 subgroup is a major point of confusion, suggesting that clinical attention should be focused on this type or that auxiliary tools may be needed to improve accuracy.

          Release date:2025-11-26 05:22 Export PDF Favorites Scan
        1 pages Previous 1 Next

        Format

        Content

      3. <xmp id="1ykh9"><source id="1ykh9"><mark id="1ykh9"></mark></source></xmp>
          <b id="1ykh9"><small id="1ykh9"></small></b>
        1. <b id="1ykh9"></b>

          1. <button id="1ykh9"></button>
            <video id="1ykh9"></video>
          2. 射丝袜