AJR AJR-based Continuing Ed for Technologists
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Saupe, N.
Right arrow Articles by Zanetti, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Saupe, N.
Right arrow Articles by Zanetti, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.07.5200.1
AJR 2007; 188:W209
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Reply

Nadja Saupe and Marco Zanetti

Orthopedic University Hospital Balgrist, Zurich, Switzerland



 
WEB—This is a Web exclusive article.

We appreciate the interest and comments of Dr. Hall related to our recent article [1], and we would like to address the issues raised.

In our retrospective study three age- and sex-matched patient groups with 21 patients each were stratified by the acromiohumeral distance measured on conventional anteroposterior radiographs (group I, ≤ 7 mm; group II, 8-10 mm; and group III, > 10 mm). Although we have no data about weight or body mass index for our patients, we believe that there was no recall bias for body weight in our three age- and sex-matched patient groups. To the best of our knowledge, there are no data in the literature documenting that the acromiohumeral distance correlates with the body weight or body mass index.

We were also aware of the usage of different terms such as conventional radiographs or plain films. After studying the radiologic and orthopedic literature in context to the acromiohumeral distance, we decided to use the term "conventional radiographs" in our study. Moreover, the term conventional radiographs was also suggested in the opinion letter mentioned by Dr. Hall that was published in the AJR in 1998 [2].

Again, we thank Dr. Hall for his interest in our article and his opinion with regard to body weight.


References
Top
 References
 

  1. Saupe N, Pfirrmann CWA, Schmid MR, Jost B, Werner CML, Zanetti M. Association between rotator cuff abnormalities and reduced acromiohumeral distance. AJR 2006;187 : 376-382[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Pope TL. "Conventional radiograph," not "plain film." AJR 1998;170 : 1426[Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Saupe, N.
Right arrow Articles by Zanetti, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Saupe, N.
Right arrow Articles by Zanetti, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS