The utility of ultrasonographic bone age determination in detecting growth disturbances; a comparative study with the conventional radiographic technique

2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (9) ◽  
pp. 1351-1356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parisa Hajalioghli ◽  
Mohammad Kazem Tarzamni ◽  
Sara Arami ◽  
Daniel Fadaei Fouladi ◽  
Morteza Ghojazadeh
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khalaf Alshamrani ◽  
Amaka Offiah ◽  
Elzene kruger
Keyword(s):  
Bone Age ◽  

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 104 (Supplement_5) ◽  
pp. 1031-1036
Author(s):  
Stephen F. Kemp ◽  
Judy P. Sy

National Cooperative Growth Study substudy VII was conducted 1) to compare standardized hand–wrist and knee bone age determinations in pubertal children treated with growth hormone (GH); 2) to compare local determinations of bone ages with centrally determined bone ages; 3) to relate the response to GH therapy to the bone age determinations; and 4) to ascertain the predictive value of each type of bone age determination. Eligible subjects were those in the National Cooperative Growth Study who were at Tanner pubertal stage 2 or greater for breasts (girls) or genitals (boys). Radiographs of the hand–wrist were taken annually, and radiographs of the knee were taken at the beginning and the end of the study. Separate bone age determinations were made from these radiographs. A combined hand–wrist and knee bone age determination also was derived. There were 990 patients in the study; in 925 (677 boys), there were both hand–wrist and knee bone age determinations from the baseline pubertal radiographs. There was only one radiographic assessment in 496 patients, two in 205 patients, and three to eight in the remaining patients. The strongest correlation was between the hand–wrist bone age and the hand–wrist plus knee bone age (r = .995). Also strongly correlated were knee with hand–wrist (r = .872) and knee with hand–wrist plus knee (r = .914). For none of these bone age methods was any statistically significant difference found between the methods. The locally determined bone ages correlated strongly with the centrally determined bone ages for knee (r = .850), hand–wrist (r = .928), and hand–wrist plus knee (r = .930); however, the locally determined knee and hand–wrist values were less (by ∼0.3 year) than the centrally determined values. These differences, however, do not appear to be clinically significant.


2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shao-Yan Zhang ◽  
Gang Liu ◽  
Chen-Guo Ma ◽  
Yi-San Han ◽  
Xun-Zhang Shen ◽  
...  

Rationale and Objective. Large studies have previously been performed to set up a Chinese bone age reference, but it has been difficult to compare the maturation of Chinese children with populations elsewhere due to the potential variability between raters in different parts of the world. We re-analysed the radiographs from a large study of normal Chinese children using an automated bone age rating method to establish a Chinese bone age reference, and to compare the tempo of maturation in the Chinese with other populations. Materials and Methods. X-rays from 2883 boys and 3143 girls aged 2–20 years from five Chinese cities, taken in 2005, were evaluated using the BoneXpert automated method. Results. Chinese children reached full maturity at the same age as previously studied Asian children from Los Angeles, but 0.6 years earlier than Caucasian children in Los Angeles. The Greulich-Pyle bone age method was adapted to the Chinese population creating a new bone age scale BX-China05. The standard deviation between BX-China05 and chronologic age was 1.01 years in boys aged 8–14, and 1.08 years in girls aged 7–12. Conclusion. By eliminating rater variability, the automated method provides a reliable and efficient standard for bone age determination in China.


2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 1425-1432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Henrik Thodberg ◽  
Lars Sävendahl

2013 ◽  
Vol 43 (12) ◽  
pp. 1615-1621 ◽  
Author(s):  
David D. Martin ◽  
Katharina Heil ◽  
Conrad Heckmann ◽  
Angelika Zierl ◽  
Jürgen Schaefer ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 757-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke Hillewig ◽  
J. De Tobel ◽  
O. Cuche ◽  
P. Vandemaele ◽  
M. Piette ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document