Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Clin Cases. Aug 26, 2021; 9(24): 7053-7061
Published online Aug 26, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i24.7053
Table 1 Variables for calculation of score
Score
Risk factor0123
Lesion-to-bone widthNone1/31/3-2/3> 2/3
Axial cortical involvementNone< 20 mm20-30 mm> 30 mm
PainNoneMildsevere
Lesion typeBlasticMixedLytic
Table 2 Comparison of demographic characteristics between the fracture and non-fracture groups
Characteristic
Fracture group (n = 40)
Non-fracture group (n = 56)
P value
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Univariate
Age (yr)8.1 ± 3.68.3 ± 3.50.77
Sex
Females24310.65
Males1625
Histological diagnosis0.58
Simple bone cyst1015
Aneurysmal bone cyst711
Fibrous dysplasia811
Non-ossifying fibroma38
Langerhans histiocytosis69
Endochondroma31
Osteoblastoma31
Lesion location0.33
Upper limp1617
Lower limp2439
Lesion type0.021
Osteolytic2829
Mixed1219
Osteoblastic08
Pain0.004
Severe124
Mild1722
None1130
Lesion-to-bone width0.006
Size > 2/32415
1/3 < Size ≤ 2/31430
Size ≤ 1/3210
Axial cortical involvement
> 30 mm31240.002
30 mm ≥ Size > 20 mm512
≤ 20 mm420
Table 3 The mean and median values for interobserver variability of score
Observer Total population
Fracture group
Non- fracture group
No. patient
Mean
Median
No. patient
Mean
Median
No. patient
Mean
Median
A966.887407.988566.016
B966.917408.008566.126
Table 4 Comparison of score between the fracture and non-fracture groups

No. patient
Score
Mean (SD)
P value
Fracture group405-107.98 (1.37)0.00
Non-fracture group563-96.01 (1.55)
Table 5 Diagnostic efficiency at different cutoff value
Score
Fracture
Non-fracture
Sensitivity
Specificity
Positive predictive value
Negative predictive value
Accuracy
Fracture probability
Youden index
304100%7%43%100%46%00.07
404100%14%45%100%50%00.14
531192%34%50%86%58%0.080.31
631585%64%60%85%71%0.150.41
761170%80%72%79%76%0.30.5
812840%95%84%69%72%0.60.35
912310%100%100%61%63%0.90.1
10400%100%0%58%58%10