Trial reportActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2017
Use of the smartphone for end vertebra selection in scoliosis.
Trial report in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of our study was to develop a smartphone-aided end vertebra selection method and to investigate its effectiveness in Cobb angle measurement.
methodsTwenty-nine adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients' pre-operative posteroanterior scoliosis radiographs were used for end vertebra selection and Cobb angle measurement by standard method and smartphone-aided method. Measurements were performed by 7 examiners. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to analyze selection and measurement reliability. Summary statistics of variance calculations were used to provide 95% prediction limits for the error in Cobb angle measurements. A paired 2-tailed t test was used to analyze end vertebra selection differences.
resultsMean absolute Cobb angle difference was 3.6° for the manual method and 1.9° for the smartphone-aided method. Both intraobserver and interobserver reliability were found excellent in manual and smartphone set for Cobb angle measurement. Both intraobserver and interobserver reliability were found excellent in manual and smartphone set for end vertebra selection. But reliability values of manual set were lower than smartphone. Two observers selected significantly different end vertebra in their repeated selections for manual method.
conclusionSmartphone-aided method for end vertebra selection and Cobb angle measurement showed excellent reliability. We can expect a reduction in measurement error rates with the widespread use of this method in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Diagnostic study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.