Loading…

A systematic review of the agreement between chronological age and skeletal age based on the Greulich and Pyle atlas

Objectives This systematic review examines the agreement between assessed skeletal age by the Greulich and Pyle atlas (GP skeletal age) and chronological age. Methods We searched electronic databases until January 2017 for studies reporting GP skeletal age and confirmed chronological age in healthy...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European radiology 2019-06, Vol.29 (6), p.2936-2948
Main Authors: Dahlberg, Pål Skage, Mosdøl, Annhild, Ding, Yunpeng, Bleka, Øyvind, Rolseth, Veslemøy, Straumann, Gyri Hval, Skjerven-Martinsen, Marianne, Delaveris, Gerd Jorunn Møller, Vist, Gunn Elisabeth
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives This systematic review examines the agreement between assessed skeletal age by the Greulich and Pyle atlas (GP skeletal age) and chronological age. Methods We searched electronic databases until January 2017 for studies reporting GP skeletal age and confirmed chronological age in healthy individuals aged 10–25 years. Results are presented as forest plots and meta-analyses (random-effects models). Results In separate meta-analyses for each age group and sex (14–18 years for girls, 14–19 years for boys), the pooled mean differences between GP skeletal age and chronological age varied from -0.52 years to 0.47 years. In individual studies, age group and sex-specific mean differences between GP skeletal age and chronological age rarely exceeded 1 year, but between-study heterogeneities were large in most age groups. Few studies examined mean chronological age and distribution for each GP skeletal age. One study of good methodological quality indicates that 95% prediction intervals for chronological age from given GP skeletal ages are typically around 4 years. Conclusions There is still good correlation between GP skeletal age and mean chronological age in modern populations. However, the individual variation of development within a population and heterogeneities between studies are substantial. Key Points • The GP atlas still corresponds well with mean chronological age in modern populations. • The substantial variation within a population must be considered. • The heterogeneity between studies is relatively large and of unknown origin.
ISSN:0938-7994
1432-1084
DOI:10.1007/s00330-018-5718-2