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