Evaluation of the Greulich–Pyle and the Tanner–Whitehouse methods
| BA minus CA (years) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Country | N (years) | Methods | Boys | Girls |
| Haiter-Neto77 | Brazil | 360 (7–15) | GP TW3 | −0.4 to 1.3 | −1.2 to 1.0 |
| −0.6 to 1.0 | −0.5 to 1.9 | ||||
| Ortega76 | Brazil | 214 (7–17) | TW2 TW3 | −0.7 to 1.4 | 0.6 to 1.9 |
| −0.7 to 0.3 | −0.4 to 0.8 | ||||
| Schmidt78 | Germany | 92 (14–16) | TW2 TW3 | −0.1 to 1.4* | |
| −0.4 to 0.2* | |||||
| Zhang79 | China | 17 401 (1–20) | TW3 | 1.0 to 1.3 | 0.2 to 1.0 |
| Büken80 | Turkey | 333 (11–16) | GP TW3 | −0.7 to 0.9 | 0.4 to 1.1 |
| −0.4 to 0.1 | −0.6 to −0.1 | ||||
Range of differences in mean values between bone age (BA) and chronologic age (CA) in different age groups.
↵* Boys and girls could not be separated.
GP, Greulich–Pyle; TW, Tanner–Whitehouse.