PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-2 (2)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Crowd Intelligence for the Classification of Fractures and Beyond 
PLoS ONE  2011;6(11):e27620.
Background
Medical diagnosis, like all products of human cognition, is subject to error. We tested the hypothesis that errors of diagnosis in the realm of fracture classification can be reduced by a consensus (group) diagnosis; and that digital imaging and Internet access makes feasible the compilation of a diagnostic consensus in real time.
Methods
Twelve orthopaedic surgeons were asked to evaluate 20 hip radiographs demonstrating a femoral neck fracture. The surgeons were asked to determine if the fractures were displaced or not. Because no reference standard is available, the maximal accuracy of the diagnosis of displacement can be inferred from inter-observer reliability: if two readers disagree about displacement, one of them must be wrong. That method was employed here. Additionally, virtual reader groups of 3 and 5 individual members were amalgamated, with the response of those groups defined by majority vote. The purpose of this step was to see if increasing the number of readers would improve accuracy. In a second experiment, to study the feasibility of amassing a reader group on the Internet in real time, 40 volunteers were sent 10 periodic email requests to answer questions and their response times were assessed.
Results
The mean kappa coefficient for individual inter-observer reliability for the diagnosis of displacement was 0.69, comparable to prior published values. For 3-member virtual reader groups, inter-observer reliability was 0.77; and for 5-member groups, it was 0.80. In the experiment studying the feasibility of amassing a reader group in real time, the mean response time was 594 minutes. For all cases, a 9-member group (theoretically 99% accurate) was amassed in 135.8 minutes or less.
Conclusions
Consensus may improve diagnosis. Amassing a group for this purpose on the Internet is feasible.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027620
PMCID: PMC3223187  PMID: 22132118
2.  Clinical Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction 
Sports Health  2010;2(1):56-72.
Background:
Clinical outcomes of autograft and allograft anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions are mixed, with some reports of excellent to good outcomes and other reports of early graft failure or significant donor site morbidity.
Objective:
To determine if there is a difference in functional outcomes, failure rates, and stability between autograft and allograft ACL reconstructions.
Data Sources:
Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Evidence Based Medicine Reviews Collection), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus were searched for articles on ACL reconstruction. Abstracts from annual meetings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, and Arthroscopy Association of North America were searched for relevant studies.
Study Selection:
Inclusion criteria for studies were as follows: primary unilateral ACL injuries, mean patient age less than 41 years, and follow-up for at least 24 months postreconstruction. Exclusion criteria for studies included the following: skeletally immature patients, multiligament injuries, and publication dates before 1990.
Data Extraction:
Joint stability measures included Lachman test, pivot-shift test, KT-1000 arthrometer assessment, and frequency of graft failures. Functional outcome measures included Tegner activity scores, Cincinnati knee scores, Lysholm scores, and IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) total scores.
Results:
More than 5000 studies were identified. After full text review of 576 studies, 56 were included, of which only 1 directly compared autograft and allograft reconstruction. Allograft ACL reconstructions were more lax when assessed by the KT-1000 arthrometer. For all other outcome measures, there was no statistically significant difference between autograft and allograft ACL reconstruction. For all outcome measures, there was strong evidence of statistical heterogeneity between studies. The sample size necessary for a randomized clinical trial to detect a difference between autograft and allograft reconstruction varied, depending on the outcome.
Conclusions:
With the current literature, only KT-1000 arthrometer assessment demonstrated more laxity with allograft reconstruction. A randomized clinical trial directly comparing allograft to autograft ACL reconstruction is warranted, but a multicenter study would be required to obtain an adequate sample size.
doi:10.1177/1941738109347984
PMCID: PMC3438864  PMID: 23015924
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; allograft; autograft; meta-analysis

Results 1-2 (2)