Table 2.
Studies radiological methods quality assessment
| Modality of imaging | Timing of imaging | Weight bearing | Protocol/standardisation | Rater reliability assessment | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berend et al. (2004) | SLR | At follow up | Y | U | N | High risk |
| Bonner et al. (2011) | LLR | 6 months | Y | Standardised | N | Low risk |
| Fang et al. (2009) | SLR | Varied | Y | Y | N | High risk |
| Kim et al. (2014) | CT, LLR | 1 week | Y | Y | Y | Low risk |
| Magnussen et al. (2011) | LLR | Follow up | Y | YRoutine for Database | Y | Low risk |
| Morgan et al. (2008) | LLR | Immediate post op | Y | Y | N | low risk |
| Parratte et al. (2010) | LLR | 2–3 month post op | Y | YStandardised protocol | Y | Low risk |
| Ritter et al. (2011) | SLR | Latest follow up | Y | U | N | High Risk |
Assessment of radiological methods used to assess alignment for this review. We devised a five point checklist (Fig. 1) and all studies were assessed using this checklist to identify whether they were high/low risk. CT computerised tomography, LLR Long leg radiograph, SLR Short leg radiograph, Y yes, N No, U Unknown