ArticleCureus2020
Novel Hump Measurement System With a 3D Camera for Early Diagnosis of Patients With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Study of Accuracy and Reliability.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of robot versus fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: a Meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of the Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement Using a Fluoroscopy-Assisted Free-Hand Technique with Robotic-Assisted Navigation Using an O-Arm or 3D C-Arm in Scoliosis Surgery.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a potentially progressive deformity, and early detection is crucial for timely intervention. However, the methods and criteria justifying screening for pediatric scoliosis remain controversial. We have, therefore, independently developed a Digital Moiré (DM) as a tool for scoliosis screening. The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of DM for scoliosis screening. Methods From March 2016 to March 2017, 126 patients (18 boys, 108 girls, mean age: 13.2 ± 2.2 years) with AIS underwent radiographic imaging of their whole spine. We tested the accuracy and reliability of DM by categorizing the examination results as Class 0 (no abnormality), Class 1 (return visit in one year), and Class 2 (further examination needed) and determined the distribution of the population by Cobb angle. The intra/inter-rater reliability and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to categorize the patients with positive findings into Class 1 or 2. Results Regarding the population distribution per Cobb angle in each of the distributions, 11 patients (8.7%) were Class 0, of which nine and two patients had Cobb angle ≤ 10 ° and > 10 °, respectively. There were 20 (15.9% ) Class 1 cases, of which 17 and three had Cobb angle ≤ 10 ° and > 10 °, respectively. Of the 95 (75.4%) Class 2 cases, five and 90 had a Cobb angle of ≤ 10 ° and > 10 °, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of patients with positive findings showed that the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and false-positive rate were 0.76, 0.98, 0.53, and 0.47, respectively, when predicting Cobb angle > 10°. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were 0.73 and 0.70, respectively. Conclusions This study demonstrated the usefulness of DM for determining whether a child with AIS requires a follow-up observation such as radiograph. Our findings suggest that the novel DM shows high accuracy and reliability for scoliosis screening.
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.