Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Distance Corrections

Distance Corrections

To achieve precise distance measurements, especially in surveying and construction, certain corrections must be applied to account for potential sources of error like the standardization errors, temperature variations, and slope adjustments.Standardization error emerges when measurement equipment undergoes changes, such as wear, repairs, or weather impacts. To address this, surveyors compare the equipment’s readings to a standard. This process identifies any deviation that might lead to...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Measurement of Reactor Antineutrino Oscillation at SNO.

Physical review letters·2025

Same author

Lorlatinib-associated weight gain and dyslipidaemia: A retrospective analysis and implications for future care.

Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)·2024

Same author

Management of early melanoma recurrence despite adjuvant anti-PD-1 antibody therapy<sup>☆</sup>.

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology·2020

Same author

Combination of a novel HDAC6 inhibitor ACY-241 and anti-PD-L1 antibody enhances anti-tumor immunity and cytotoxicity in multiple myeloma.

Leukemia·2017

Same author

Nucleotide excision repair is a potential therapeutic target in multiple myeloma.

Leukemia·2017

Same author

Blockade of deubiquitylating enzyme Rpn11 triggers apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells and overcomes bortezomib resistance.

Oncogene·2017

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 30, 2026

Culture of Murine Embryonic Metatarsals: A Physiological Model of Endochondral Ossification

Culture of Murine Embryonic Metatarsals: A Physiological Model of Endochondral Ossification

Published on: December 3, 2016

Does it matter how we measure metatarsal length?

D Chauhan¹, M A Bhutta, J L Barrie

¹Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK.

Foot and Ankle Surgery : Official Journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons

|July 26, 2011

Summary

Radiological measurement of second metatarsal length varies significantly between common methods. This variability questions their reliability for planning metatarsal osteotomies and understanding forefoot pain causes.

More Related Videos

Measurement of Healthy and Injured Triceps Surae Morphology

Measurement of Healthy and Injured Triceps Surae Morphology

Published on: October 27, 2023

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 30, 2026

Culture of Murine Embryonic Metatarsals: A Physiological Model of Endochondral Ossification

Culture of Murine Embryonic Metatarsals: A Physiological Model of Endochondral Ossification

Published on: December 3, 2016

Measurement of Healthy and Injured Triceps Surae Morphology

Measurement of Healthy and Injured Triceps Surae Morphology

Published on: October 27, 2023

Area of Science:

Orthopedics
Radiology
Podiatry

Background:

Variations in metatarsal bone lengths are linked to forefoot pain.
Osteotomies are used to correct metatarsal length discrepancies.
A standardized radiological method for measuring metatarsal length is lacking.

Purpose of the Study:

To compare three common radiological methods for measuring second metatarsal length.
To assess the reproducibility and agreement of these measurement techniques.

Main Methods:

Standing dorsoplantar radiographs of 81 feet were analyzed.
Measurements were taken using Coughlin, Maestro, and Hardy/Clapham methods.
Bland and Altman analysis was employed for reproducibility and agreement assessment.

Main Results:

Significant differences in measured second metatarsal lengths were observed.
Coughlin's and Maestro's methods indicated protrusion, while Hardy/Clapham's suggested retraction.
Coughlin's method demonstrated the highest reproducibility; Hardy/Clapham's the lowest.
Inter-method agreement was poor, with biases ranging from 1mm to 5.5mm.

Conclusions:

Current radiological methods for measuring metatarsal length yield highly variable results.
The reliability of these methods in surgical planning (e.g., metatarsal osteotomies) is questionable.
Further research is needed to establish accurate and reliable measurement techniques.