ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2022
Screening for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis is more accurate when performed by healthcare professionals compared to untrained parents: a diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bracing and non-surgical management of scoliosis in Canada: Early detection, access inequities, and the need for interdisciplinary reform.Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal · 2025Article
- Educating Parents Improves Their Ability to Recognize Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany countries ended their professional scoliosis screening due to ongoing controversies. Discontinuation resulted in a shift of screening responsibility from trained healthcare professionals to untrained parents. PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of picture-based scoliosis screening between parents and healthcare professionals.
methodsIn this cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study, parents and healthcare professionals assessed pictures of 28 children (20 AIS & 8 non-scoliosis). Each child had two photographs (standing position & full-flexion during forward-bending test) that were presented simultaneously. Lumbar and thoracic curves were represented with a range in severity (10 to > 40°). The assessors had to answer whether they detected an abnormality that ought to be referred to a specialist. Measures of accuracy were calculated for both groups and various curve severities.
resultsAll pictures were assessed by 101 parents and 122 healthcare professionals. The sensitivity for detecting scoliosis was significantly lower in untrained parents (63.8%, [95% CI: 61.7-65.9%]) compared to healthcare professionals (73.4%, [95% CI: 71.6-75.2%]; p < 0.001), while the specificity was not significantly different (63.6%, [95% CI: 60.2-66.9%] vs. 65.3%, [95% CI: 62.2-68.3%]; p = 0.49). Healthcare professionals consistently recognized the gibbus as a warning sign when referring patients, while untrained parents highlighted various regions, including the spine, gibbus and scapula regions.
conclusionThe sensitivity of screening for scoliosis was significantly lower when it was performed by parents, while the false-positive rate was similar to healthcare professionals. The window of opportunity for conservative treatment may be missed when parents rather than professionals are responsible for 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.