Publication Details

AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS

SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH

agricultural and biological sciences

A comparison of skeletal maturity assessed by radiological and ultrasonic methods

American Journal of Human Biology, Volume 29, No. 4, Article e22966, Year 2017

Objectives: The estimation of skeletal maturity is a useful tool in pediatric practice to determine the degree of delay or advancement in growth disorders and the effectiveness of treatment in conditions that influence linear growth. Skeletal maturity of children is commonly assessed using either Greulich–Pyle (GP) or Tanner–Whitehouse methods (TW2 and TW3). However, a less invasive ultrasonic method, that does not use ionizing radiation, has been suggested for use in epidemiological studies of skeletal maturity. The main purpose of the present study was to determine the accuracy of an ultrasonic method based on the GP maturity indicators compared to the standard GP radiographic method. Methods: Skeletal maturity of 1502 healthy children, aged from 6 to 18 years, was estimated by quantitative ultrasound and compared to GP bone ages estimated from left hand and wrist radiographs of a subsample of 47 randomly selected participants. Results: The ultrasonic bone age estimation demonstrated very strong correlations with all the radiological age estimations. The correlation coefficients ranged between 0.895 and 0.958, and the strongest correlation of ultrasonic skeletal maturity estimation was found with the Tanner–Whitehouse RUS method. The ultrasonic bone age estimation is suggested for use between the chronological ages of 8.5–16.0 years in boys and 7.5–15.0 years in girls. Conclusions: The ultrasonic bone age estimation is suggested for use in epidemiological surveys since the sensitivity for screening for not normal bone development is appropriate, at least within the 8–15 years age interval. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Statistics
Citations: 15
Authors: 1
Affiliations: 3
Identifiers
Research Areas
Cancer
Maternal And Child Health
Study Design
Cross Sectional Study
Study Approach
Quantitative
Participants Gender
Male
Female