Is the assessment of bone age by the Greulich-Pyle method reliable at forensic age estimation for Turkish children?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorBüken, Bora
dc.contributor.authorŞafak, Alp Alper
dc.contributor.authorYazıcı, Burhan
dc.contributor.authorBüken, Erhan
dc.contributor.authorMayda, Atilla Senih
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-30T23:18:46Z
dc.date.available2020-04-30T23:18:46Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.departmentDÜ, Tıp Fakültesi, Dahili Tıp Bilimleri Bölümüen_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000251076000011en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 17391883en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Estimation of age is an important task for forensic experts especially in developing countries where birth records are often not well maintained. In this study, we investigated whether or not the Greulich-Pyle (G-P) method is sufficient at forensic age estimation for Turkish children. Methods: Plain radiographies of left hands and wrists of 492 (241 (49.0%) female, 251 (51.0%) male) healthy children between 11 and 18 years of age for girls and 11 and 19 years of age for boys were taken. Mean chronological ages (CA) were compared with mean skeletal ages according to G-P atlas for each gender and in the second step the differences those for each age group were determined. The children were Caucasian and had a low-middle socioeconomic status in this study population. The paired sample t test was used to indicate the difference between G-P (mean skeletal age according to G-P atlas) and CA (mean chronological age). In order to indicate the relation Pearson correlation coefficient was used. Modeling the relationship between G-P and CA linear regression was used. The analyses were done under SPSS 11.5. Results: The G-P compared to their CA. The CA was 14.52 +/- 2.18 S.D. years, S.E.: 0.14 (median: 14.47, range: 11.07-18.92 years) whereas G-P was 15.06 +/- 2.31 S.D. years, S.E.: 0.15 (median: 15.00, range: 10-18 years) for girls. The difference between the two parameters was statistically significant (p < 0.00 1). The CA was 15.28 +/- 2.41 S.D. years, S.E.: 0.15 (median: 15.09, S.E. range 11. 13-19.94 years) and G-P was 15.41 +/- 2.92 S.D. years, S.E.: 0.18 (median: 15.60, range 9-19 years) for boys. The difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). There was a high correlation (Pearson r = 0.882, p < 0.00 1) for girls and (Pearson r = 0.900, p < 0.001) for boys. The determination coefficient (R-2) is equal to 0.778 for girls and 0.81 for boys. The regression model also tested by ANOVA and it is found significant (p < 0.01) for both genders. According to age groups G-P was advanced (0.17-1.1 year) almost for all ages and differences were significant at 11, 12, 14, 16 ages for girls. G-P was delayed at 11-14 ages (0.01-0.58 year) but not significant except for 13 years and G-P were significantly advanced in 15-17 ages (0.880.98 years) but then delayed in 18-19 years of age (0.02-0.48) for boys. The difference's standard deviation at 12, 13, 15, 16 years of ages for girls and between 12 and 16 and 18 years of ages for,boys were more than 1 year. Conclusion: When the results of the previous study and this study are compared, the test method could be used technically by pediatricians and other clinicians, but it is even more important for ethically unacceptable errors to disappear, especially in cases involving the possible criminal liability of the supposed minor. So standard deviation at 12, 15 years of ages for girls and 12, 15, 18 years of ages for boys were more than I year. But it is not known that the other methods whether more useful or not than this method. For the time being unless any other methods will be proved more useful, we have to use this method cautiously for possible criminal liability cases in forensic age diagnosis. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.02.023en_US
dc.identifier.endpage153en_US
dc.identifier.issn0379-0738
dc.identifier.issn1872-6283
dc.identifier.issue02.Maren_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage146en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.02.023
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12684/3515
dc.identifier.volume173en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000251076000011en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Ireland Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofForensic Science Internationalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectage estimationen_US
dc.subjectbone ageen_US
dc.subjectpubic hair stageen_US
dc.subjectskeletal maturationen_US
dc.subjectTurkish childrenen_US
dc.subjectG-P methoden_US
dc.titleIs the assessment of bone age by the Greulich-Pyle method reliable at forensic age estimation for Turkish children?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Orijinal paket
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Küçük Resim Yok
İsim:
3515.pdf
Boyut:
257.02 KB
Biçim:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Açıklama:
Tam Metin / Full Text
İndir

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Makale Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu