Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of literature reporting the rater agreements of the deformity and planned correction angle measurements [6, 20, 21, 25,26,27, 33]

From: Accuracy, inter- and intrarater reliability, and user-experience of high tibial osteotomy angle measurements for preoperative planning: manual planning PACS versus semi-automatic software programs

Literature N k Materials mLDFA mMPTA Planned correction angle
Elson et al. (2013) [6] 24 3 PACS Viewer (manual)a NR NR ICC-1: (0.980–0.986)
ICC-2: (0.965–0.985)
Munier et al. (2017) [20] 10 2 Centricity software® (GE Healthcare) NR ICC-1: 0.980
ICC-2: 0.920
NR
Nerhus et al. (2017) [21] 50 2 MediCad v2.24 module osteotomy ICC-1: 0.91 | CR/SRD: 1.9°
ICC-2: 0.89 | CR/SRD: 2.1°
ICC-1: 0.91 | CR/SRD: 1.9°
ICC-2: 0.89 | CR/SRD: 2.1°
NR
Schröter et al. (2012) [25] 81 3 PreOPlan®a ICC-1: 0.841 (0.780–0.889) ICC-1: 0.974 (0.963–0.983) ICC-1: 0.993 (0.990–0.995)
MediCad®a ICC-1: 0.947 (0.925–0.964) ICC-1: 0.974 (0.961–0.983) ICC-1: 0.995 (0.992–0.996)
Segev et al. (2010) [26] 10 5 TraumaCad® ICC-1: 0.630–0.950 ICC-1: 0.690–0.810 NR
Sled et al. (2011) [27] 105 7 AutoCad® manuala ICC-1: 0.990 (0.983–0.995) ICC-1: 0.906 (0.843–0.948) NR
200 3 AutoCad semi-automatica ICC-1: 0.960 (0.953–1)
ICC-2: 0.966 (0.961–1)
ICC-1: 0.947 (0.937–1)
ICC-2: 0.964 (0.959–1)
NR
Yazdanpanah et al. (2017) [33] 108 3 Software Medview Meddiag® v3.0.4 Inter: > 0.99
Intra: >  0.99
Inter: 0.92
Intra: >  0.99
NR
  1. aMean (Confidence interval 95%)
  2. CR/SRD coefficient of repeatability/smallest real difference, ICC-1 interrater intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC-2 intrarater intraclass correlation coefficient, k number of raters, mLDFA mechanical lateral distal femoral angle, mMPTA mechanical medial proximal tibial angle, N number of legs measured, NR not reported