Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: Quality of Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy for US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review the quality of diagnostic accuracy reporting in studies on the use of ultrasonography (US) for the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, and Cochrane Library databases was performed by using a validated search strategy. Two independent reviewers evaluated articles by using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) and Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy included in Systematic Reviews (QUADAS) statements. Items were reported individually for STARD and QUADAS because these instruments do not incorporate a summary score. A simple kappa statistic with 95% confidence intervals was used to measure the level of agreement between the two reviewers. RESULTS: Ten studies were included. In three studies, reliability was investigated, and in seven studies elements of both validity and reliability were investigated. In no study did the authors adequately report more than 40% of the STARD items. The quality of methods that were used in the studies was poor. Only one (14%) of seven studies provided information on more than 50% of the QUADAS items. All studies included a good description of image acquisition, but data analysis was imperfect and lacked estimates of diagnostic accuracy and precision. Authors tended to overinterpret their results. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was imperfect reporting of diagnostic accuracy in studies on the use of US for diagnosis of DDH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".