Intra- and Interrater Reliability Assessment of the Fragility Fracture of the Pelvis Classification and the Resulting Treatment Decision. A Multicentric, Retrospective Reliability Study

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Observational

Source

DRKS

Registry ID

DRKS00014248

Enrollment

Registered

2018-03-13

Start date

2017-09-01

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2025-04-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

S32.7

Interventions

Group 1: In the present retrospective study 60 pelvic computed tomographies with fragility fractures of the pelvis were classified according to the FFP classification and proposals for the resulting t

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Age

60 Years to No maximum

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: - Pelvic ring fracture - age = 60 years - trauma: atraumatic or non-remembered, low energy trauma (e.g. fall from a standing position, fall from a chair)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: - Malignancy associated fracture - trauma: traffic accident, bike cycle accident, fall from height > 3m

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
In this retrospective observational study, 60 pelvic computed tomographies from 6 participating clinics were examined by 13 observers regarding the FFP classification and the decided therapy by the observers. The pelvic computed tomography images were collected from patients treated in the participating clinics prior to the start of the study and whose treatment was completed. Patients should be selected from the period January 2015 to June 2017. The Fleiss Kappa coefficient was used for agreement analysis. In addition, the percentage agreement of classification and therapy was determined compared to the "gold standard", the "submitting clinic" and majority vote. The primary and secondary endpoint was measured after all classification rounds had been completed and the complete data were sent to the study leader. Analysis were performed after a completeness check by the study leader. 1. Assessment of the intra- and interrater reliability of the FFP classification of 12 observers with a comparison to the classification of the submitting clinic and the classification establishing clinic. Parameters: Intrarater reliability (ICC (1)), interrater reliability (ICC (A, 1)), percentage agreement. 2. Assessment of the intra- and interrater reliability of the treatment decision resulting from the previous made FFP classification of 12 observers with a comparison to the decision of the submitting clinic and the classification establishing clinic. Parameters: Intrarater reliability (ICC (1)), interrater reliability (ICC (A, 1)), percentage agreement	—

Measure

Time frame

In this retrospective observational study, 60 pelvic computed tomographies from 6 participating clinics were examined by 13 observers regarding the FFP classification and the decided therapy by the observers. The pelvic computed tomography images were collected from patients treated in the participating clinics prior to the start of the study and whose treatment was completed. Patients should be selected from the period January 2015 to June 2017. The Fleiss Kappa coefficient was used for agreement analysis. In addition, the percentage agreement of classification and therapy was determined compared to the "gold standard", the "submitting clinic" and majority vote. The primary and secondary endpoint was measured after all classification rounds had been completed and the complete data were sent to the study leader. Analysis were performed after a completeness check by the study leader. 1. Assessment of the intra- and interrater reliability of the FFP classification of 12 observers with a comparison to the classification of the submitting clinic and the classification establishing clinic. Parameters: Intrarater reliability (ICC (1)), interrater reliability (ICC (A, 1)), percentage agreement. 2. Assessment of the intra- and interrater reliability of the treatment decision resulting from the previous made FFP classification of 12 observers with a comparison to the decision of the submitting clinic and the classification establishing clinic. Parameters: Intrarater reliability (ICC (1)), interrater reliability (ICC (A, 1)), percentage agreement

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
The primary and secondary endpoint was measured after all classification rounds had been completed and the complete data were sent to the study leader. Analysis were performed after a completeness check by the study leader. 1. Assessment of the intra- and interrater reliability of the FFP classification of the submitting clinic and the classification establishing clinic. Parameters: Intrarater reliability (ICC (1)), interrater reliability (ICC (A, 1)), percentage agreement 2. Assessment of the intra- and interrater reliability of the treatment decision resulting from the previous made FFP classification of the submitting clinic and the classification establishing clinic. Parameters: Intrarater reliability (ICC (1)), interrater reliability (ICC (A, 1)), percentage agreement	—

Measure

Time frame

The primary and secondary endpoint was measured after all classification rounds had been completed and the complete data were sent to the study leader. Analysis were performed after a completeness check by the study leader. 1. Assessment of the intra- and interrater reliability of the FFP classification of the submitting clinic and the classification establishing clinic. Parameters: Intrarater reliability (ICC (1)), interrater reliability (ICC (A, 1)), percentage agreement 2. Assessment of the intra- and interrater reliability of the treatment decision resulting from the previous made FFP classification of the submitting clinic and the classification establishing clinic. Parameters: Intrarater reliability (ICC (1)), interrater reliability (ICC (A, 1)), percentage agreement

—

Countries

Germany

Contacts

Public ContactPhilipp Pieroh

Klinik für Orthopädie, Unfallchirurgie und Plastische Chirurgie

Philipp.Pieroh@medizin.uni-leipzig.de03419720660

Outcome results

None listed

Source: DRKS (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026