Comparison of the three age estimation methods: Which is more reliable for Turkish children?

The Reliability of the Greulich and Pyle Atlas When Applied to a Modern Scottish Population

“…The population studied here showed a pattern of underestimating the age of males prior to puberty (13 years) and over-aging after puberty. This pattern for males is reflected in other studies (33,44,46,47,50,52,54). The pattern for females was different because, with the exception of two groups, the atlas tended to over-estimate age throughout the maturation process.…”

The International Olympic Committee Consensus Statement on age determination in high-level young athletes

“…In a Chinese study by Zhang et al 79 of more than 17 000 children, the corresponding figures for TW3 minus chronological age were 1.0–1.3 years in Chinese boys in early adolescence and 0.2–1.0 years in girls. The Greulich–Pyle and TW3 methods were evaluated in a Turkish study by Büken et al 80 (333 healthy children, 11–16 years of age). The difference between Greulich–Pyle and chronological age was −0.7–0.9 years in boys and 0.4–1.1 years in girls.…”

The epiphyseal scar: changing perceptions in relation to skeletal age estimation

“…Radiographic methods of assessment, such as those relating to the hand and wrist (Andersen, 1971, Büken et al, 2009, Bull et al, 1999, Greulich and Pyle, 1950, 1959, Hackman and Black, 2013b, Schmeling et al, 2006, Schmidt et al, 2007, Schmidt et al, 2008b, Tanner et al, 2001, Tanner et al, 1962, Tanner et al, 1975, Thiemann and Nitz, 1991, Vignolo et al, 1992, elbow (Brodeur, 1981, Diméglio et al, 2005, Sauvegrain et al, 1962 , knee Black, 2013a, Pyle andHoerr, 1969), and foot and ankle , Hoerr et al, 1962 have undergone extensive testing on additional populations.…”