Article Test

We have carried out a review study in order to remind the pediatrician of the differences in bone age (EO) between the existing Greulich-Pyle (GP) or Tanner-Whitehouse 2 (TW2) methods compared to Ebrí ages: EO Ebrí-carpal (EOIC) metacarpophalangic (EOIMF) and Carpometacarpophalangic (EOICMF). The study was carried out in Spanish longitudinal casuistry “Andrea Prader”. It comprises 160 healthy children: 73 males and 87 females, distributed by sex and age from 0.5 to 20 years. By obtaining the EO for each method, a comprehensive study can be carried out between them, and thus, observing if there are differences, being able to offer a quantification  to the pediatrician for him to take them into account. In previous studies, the equations for obtaining the EO were expressed by the Ebrí methods. These quantifications are presented throughout this review.

In this way, the doctor will be able to know the equivalences to EO Ebrí, when he only has the EO of a child by the GP or TW2 methods. However, when the pediatrician obtains the EO with our method, no correction is necessary for a Spanish child since it has been obtained directly, and not through the filter of the two English and American methods. When the Ebrí method is applied to non-Spanish children, it is also convenient to assess these differences.

We observe how in women, GP has a tendency to overestimate, while Tanner and our methods tend to underestimate. In men, not only GP has a tendency to overestimate but also TW2 compared to our methods.

Quantifying these differences translated into months, it is observed how in TW2 women, even underestimating a month and a half with respect to GP, presents an overestimation of 3 months with respect to EOIMF, 4 months with respect to EOIC and 4.7 months with respect to EOICMF. GP presents differences of up to 6 months with respect to EOIC, 6.5 months with respect to EOICMF, and 5 months with respect to EOIMF.

In males, TW2 presents overestimations of EO of up to 4 months different from EOICMF, 5 months from EOIMF and EOIC, and about a month and a half from GP. Greulich and Pyle show minor overestimations, up to 3.3 months with respect to EOIMF, 3.7 months with respect to EOIC, and 2.7 months with respect to EOICMF.