Cargando…

Is the Greulich and Pyle atlas applicable to all ethnicities? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Greulich and Pyle (G&P) atlas is applicable when applied to populations of different ethnicity. METHODS: A systematic review of studies published between 1959 and 15th February 2017 identified from the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was undertaken. Qua...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alshamrani, Khalaf, Messina, Fabrizio, Offiah, Amaka C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6510872/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30617474
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5792-5
_version_ 1783417487531966464
author Alshamrani, Khalaf
Messina, Fabrizio
Offiah, Amaka C.
author_facet Alshamrani, Khalaf
Messina, Fabrizio
Offiah, Amaka C.
author_sort Alshamrani, Khalaf
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Greulich and Pyle (G&P) atlas is applicable when applied to populations of different ethnicity. METHODS: A systematic review of studies published between 1959 and 15th February 2017 identified from the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was undertaken. Quality of the studies was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence tool. Meta-analysis used mean differences and standard deviations as summary statistics for the difference between bone age (BA) and chronological age (CA). RESULTS: A total of 49 studies were included of which 27 (55%) were related to Caucasian populations. Of the 49 eligible studies, 35 were appropriate for further meta-analysis. In African females, meta-analysis showed a significant mean difference between BA and CA of 0.37 years (95% CI 0.04, 0.69). In Asian males, meta-analysis showed significant differences between BA and CA of -1.08, -1.35, -1.07, -0.80 and 0.50 years for chronological ages of 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 years, respectively. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between BA and CA in African males, Asian females, Caucasians and Hispanics. CONCLUSIONS: The G&P standard is imprecise and should be used with caution when applied to Asian male and African female populations, particularly when aiming to determine chronological age for forensic/legal purposes. KEY POINTS: • In African females, bone age is significantly advanced when compared to the G&P standard. • In Asian males, bone age is significantly delayed between 6 and 9 years old inclusive and significantly advanced at 17 years old when compared to the G&P standard. • The G&P atlas should be used with caution when applied to Asian and African populations, particularly when aiming to determine chronological age for forensic/legal purposes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-018-5792-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6510872
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65108722019-05-28 Is the Greulich and Pyle atlas applicable to all ethnicities? A systematic review and meta-analysis Alshamrani, Khalaf Messina, Fabrizio Offiah, Amaka C. Eur Radiol Forensic Medicine OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Greulich and Pyle (G&P) atlas is applicable when applied to populations of different ethnicity. METHODS: A systematic review of studies published between 1959 and 15th February 2017 identified from the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was undertaken. Quality of the studies was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence tool. Meta-analysis used mean differences and standard deviations as summary statistics for the difference between bone age (BA) and chronological age (CA). RESULTS: A total of 49 studies were included of which 27 (55%) were related to Caucasian populations. Of the 49 eligible studies, 35 were appropriate for further meta-analysis. In African females, meta-analysis showed a significant mean difference between BA and CA of 0.37 years (95% CI 0.04, 0.69). In Asian males, meta-analysis showed significant differences between BA and CA of -1.08, -1.35, -1.07, -0.80 and 0.50 years for chronological ages of 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 years, respectively. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between BA and CA in African males, Asian females, Caucasians and Hispanics. CONCLUSIONS: The G&P standard is imprecise and should be used with caution when applied to Asian male and African female populations, particularly when aiming to determine chronological age for forensic/legal purposes. KEY POINTS: • In African females, bone age is significantly advanced when compared to the G&P standard. • In Asian males, bone age is significantly delayed between 6 and 9 years old inclusive and significantly advanced at 17 years old when compared to the G&P standard. • The G&P atlas should be used with caution when applied to Asian and African populations, particularly when aiming to determine chronological age for forensic/legal purposes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-018-5792-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-01-07 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6510872/ /pubmed/30617474 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5792-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Forensic Medicine
Alshamrani, Khalaf
Messina, Fabrizio
Offiah, Amaka C.
Is the Greulich and Pyle atlas applicable to all ethnicities? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Is the Greulich and Pyle atlas applicable to all ethnicities? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Is the Greulich and Pyle atlas applicable to all ethnicities? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Is the Greulich and Pyle atlas applicable to all ethnicities? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Is the Greulich and Pyle atlas applicable to all ethnicities? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Is the Greulich and Pyle atlas applicable to all ethnicities? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort is the greulich and pyle atlas applicable to all ethnicities? a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Forensic Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6510872/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30617474
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5792-5
work_keys_str_mv AT alshamranikhalaf isthegreulichandpyleatlasapplicabletoallethnicitiesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT messinafabrizio isthegreulichandpyleatlasapplicabletoallethnicitiesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT offiahamakac isthegreulichandpyleatlasapplicabletoallethnicitiesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis