TY - JOUR
T1 - Skeletal age assessment in children and young adults
T2 - Comparison between a newly developed sonographic method and conventional methods
AU - Castriota-Scanderbeg, Alessandro
AU - Sacco, Michele C.
AU - Emberti-Gialloreti, Leonardo
AU - Fraracci, Lucio
PY - 1998/5
Y1 - 1998/5
N2 - Objective. To compare the performance of a new sonographic (US) method of bone age estimation with other methods currently in use. Design and patients. One hundred and fifteen subjects underwent left hand/wrist radiography and US examination of the hip for bone age assessment. For each patient, measurements of skeletal age were available based on Greulich-Pyle and Tanner and Whitehouse, the latter being presented in three subtypes (RUS, carpals, and B20) in addition to the US values. To assess agreement between methods, each method was compared with every other method. Differences between calculated skeletal age and chronological age were assessed, and the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of each method computed. Results. Coupled B20/RUS values showed the best agreement, with 95% of observations within 2.45 years of each other, followed by carpals/B20, B20/GP, and GP/RUS. The US method agreed the least (difference of 4.19-5.13 years) with the other methods. The US method provided 85.8% (US vs RUS) to 91.3% (US vs GP) concordant results in recognizing differences between skeletal and chronological age, and showed a 72.5% sensitivity and a 56.8% specificity. Conclusion. Although the US method promises to permit a safe and cost effective assessment of skeletal age, its low accuracy makes it currently unsuitable for clinical use.
AB - Objective. To compare the performance of a new sonographic (US) method of bone age estimation with other methods currently in use. Design and patients. One hundred and fifteen subjects underwent left hand/wrist radiography and US examination of the hip for bone age assessment. For each patient, measurements of skeletal age were available based on Greulich-Pyle and Tanner and Whitehouse, the latter being presented in three subtypes (RUS, carpals, and B20) in addition to the US values. To assess agreement between methods, each method was compared with every other method. Differences between calculated skeletal age and chronological age were assessed, and the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of each method computed. Results. Coupled B20/RUS values showed the best agreement, with 95% of observations within 2.45 years of each other, followed by carpals/B20, B20/GP, and GP/RUS. The US method agreed the least (difference of 4.19-5.13 years) with the other methods. The US method provided 85.8% (US vs RUS) to 91.3% (US vs GP) concordant results in recognizing differences between skeletal and chronological age, and showed a 72.5% sensitivity and a 56.8% specificity. Conclusion. Although the US method promises to permit a safe and cost effective assessment of skeletal age, its low accuracy makes it currently unsuitable for clinical use.
KW - Greulich-Pyle method
KW - Skeletal age
KW - Tanner-Whitehouse method
KW - Ultrasonography
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031776260&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031776260&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s002560050380
DO - 10.1007/s002560050380
M3 - Article
C2 - 9638838
AN - SCOPUS:0031776260
VL - 27
SP - 271
EP - 277
JO - Skeletal Radiology
JF - Skeletal Radiology
SN - 0364-2348
IS - 5
ER -