Article Sidebar
Article Details
The author(s) retain copyright on work published by AOSIS unless specified otherwise.
Licensing and publishing rights
Author(s) of work published by AOSIS are required to grant AOSIS the unlimited rights to publish the definitive work in any format, language and medium, for any lawful purpose. AOSIS requires journal authors to publish their work in open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
Read more here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The authors retain the non-exclusive right to do anything they wish with the published article(s), provided attribution is given to the applicable journal with details of the original publication, as set out in the official citation of the article published in the journal. The retained right specifically includes the right to post the article on the authors’ or their institution’s websites or in institutional repositories.
Previously published work may have been published under a different licence. We advise the community that if they would like to reuse the work to consult the applicable licence at article level.
Main Article Content
Bone of contention: The applicability of the Greulich– Pyle method for skeletal age assessment in South Africa
Abstract
Background: The Greulich–Pyle (GP) method is one of the most commonly used radiographic techniques for skeletal age (SA) determination. The applicability of this method for populations outside of the United States has been questioned and this has been investigated in several recent studies around the world. Only limited data are available on the accuracy of the GP method for a South African population.
Objective: To determine the accuracy and reliability of the GP method in a population from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Method: A retrospective study was performed using a digital database consisting of 102 handwrist radiographs. The SA was estimated by two readers with different levels of experience, using the GP method. Differences between estimated SA and chronological age (CA) were analysed.
Results: Skeletal age determined with the GP method was found to significantly differ from CA. For the population as a whole, the GP method underestimated age. The greatest mean underestimation between SA and CA was 11.5 ± 17 months and 7.4 ± 13.2 months for the 10.1 to 15 year age groups in male and female patients, respectively. The method was found to have excellent inter- and intra-observer reliability.
Conclusion: The GP method generally significantly underestimates age for both genders. Overestimation is also possible with individuals as young as 16 years old found by the method to be skeletally mature. Until new SA assessment tools are developed for South Africa, use of supplementary means of determination of SA should be considered, especially in medico-legal cases.
