Table 5.
Radiological methods quality assessment of included studies
| Author | Modality of image | Timing of image | Weight bearing | Protocol/standardisation | Rater reliability assessment | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Choong et al. (2012) | CT, LLR | 6 weeks | Y | Y | N | Low risk |
| Lutzner et al. (2010) | CT, LLR | 18–32 months | Y | U | N | High risk |
| Huang et al. (2012) | CT, LLR | 6 weeks | Y | Y | N | Low risk |
| Blakeney et al. (2014) | CT (3D) | 3 months | N | Y | N | Medium risk |
| Gothesen et al. (2014) | CT, LLR | 3 months | Y | Y | N | Low risk |
| Barrack et al. (2001) | CT, LLR | At latest follow up | Y | U | N | High risk |
| Stulberg et al. (2008) | LLR, SLR, Navigation system | 4 weeks and 2 years | Y | Y | N | Low risk |
| Nicoll and Rowley (2010) JBJS | CT, SLR | At least 1 year after TKR | N | U | N Senior author | High risk |
| Matziolis et al. (2010) | LLR | Latest follow up | Y | Y | Y | High risk |
| Czurda et al. (2010) | CT, LLR | At 1st follow up | Y | Y | N Independent radiologist | Low risk |
| Magnussen et al. (2011) | LLR | Follow up (varied) | Y | Y | Y | High risk |
| Bell et al. (2014) | CT | 26 months | N | U | MSK radiologist | High risk |
| Bankes et al. (2003) | SLR | 3 and 12 month follow up | Y | Y | N | Low risk |
| Aglietti et al. (2007) | LLR | Latest follow up | Y | Stress to assess varus-valgus stability | N | High risk |
| Longstaff et al. (2009) | CT | 6 months | N | Y | Y | Low risk |
| Bach et al. (2009) | SLR | At follow up | N | Y | N Experienced radiologist | High risk |
| Rienmüller et al. (2012) | LLR, Axial XR | 5 years | N | Y | Y | High risk |
| Howell et al. (2013b) | CT | 2 days | N | Y | N | Medium risk |
We devised a 5 point checklist (Fig. 2) 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