000			04390nam a22005057a 4500
008			240807s20242024 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a1067-151X
024			_a00124635-990000000-00984 [pii]
040			_aOvid MEDLINE(R)
099			_a38748901
245			_aReliability of the Walch Classification for Characterization of Primary Glenohumeral Arthritis: A Systematic Review.
251			_aJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2024 May 14
252			_aJ Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2024 May 14
253			_aThe Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
260			_c2024
260			_fFY2024
260			_p2024 May 14
265			_saheadofprint
265			_tPublisher
266			_d2024-08-07
266			_z2024/05/15 15:33
501			_aAvailable online from MWHC library: Oct 1993 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - present
520			_aDISCUSSION: The reliability of the Walch classification remains inconsistent, despite modification and imaging advances. Consideration of the limitations of the classification system is important when using it for treatment or prognostic purposes. Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
520			_aINTRODUCTION: The Walch classification has been widely accepted and further developed as a method to characterize glenohumeral arthritis. However, many studies have reported low and inconsistent measures of the reliability of the Walch classification. The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the reliability of the Walch classification and characterize how imaging modality and classification modifications affect reliability.
520			_aMETHODS: A systematic review of publications that included reliability of the Walch classification reported through intraobserver and interobserver kappa values was conducted. A search in January 2021 and repeated in July 2023 used the terms ["Imaging" OR "radiography" OR "CT" OR "MRI"] AND ["Walch classification"] AND ["Glenoid arthritis" OR "Shoulder arthritis"]. All clinical studies from database inception to July 2023 that evaluated the Walch or modified Walch classification's intraobserver and/or interobserver reliability were included. Cadaveric studies and studies that involved subjects with previous arthroplasty, shoulder debridement, glenoid reaming, interposition arthroplasty, and latarjet or bankart procedure were excluded. Articles were categorized by imaging modality and classification modification.
520			_aRESULTS: Thirteen articles met all inclusion criteria. Three involved the evaluation of plain radiographs, 10 used CT, two used three-dimensional (3D) CT, and four used magnetic resonance imaging. Nine studies involved the original Walch classification system, five involved a simplified version, and four involved the modified Walch. Six studies examined the reliability of raters of varying experience levels with none reporting consistent differences based on experience. Overall intraobserver reliability of the Walch classifications ranged from 0.34 to 0.92, and interobserver reliability ranged from 0.132 to 0.703. No consistent trends were observed in the effect of the imaging modalities or classification modifications on reliability.
546			_aEnglish
650			_aIN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXED
650			_zAutomated
651			_aMedStar Union Memorial Hospital
656			_aMedStar Georgetown University Hospital/MedStar Washington Hospital Center
656			_aOrthopaedic Surgery Residency
656			_aOrthopedics
657			_aJournal Article
700			_aHaislup, Brett _bMUMH _cOrthopaedic Surgery Residency _dMD
700			_aLindsey, Sierra _bMUMH _cOrthopaedic Surgery Residency _dMD
700			_aMurthi, Anand M _bMUMH
700			_aSchaefer, Eliana _bMGUH _cOrthopaedic Surgery Residency _dMD
700			_aSequeira, Sean _bMUMH _cOrthopaedic Surgery Residency _dMD
700			_aTarapore, Rae _bMUMH _cOrthopaedic Surgery Residency _dMD
790			_aSchaefer EJ, Haislup B, Trent S, Sequeira S, Tarapore R, Lindsey S, Murthi AM, Wright M
856			_uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-22-01086 _zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-22-01086
858			_ySchaefer, Eliana J _uhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3403-2716 _zhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3403-2716
942			_cART _dArticle
999			_c14432 _d14432