ArticleScientific reports2022
Validity and reliability of a novel iPhone method to rapidly measure cervical sagittal parameters.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Reliability of Biomechanical Mensuration Methods of the Sagittal Cervical Spine in Radiography Used in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A different perspective on cervical X-ray parameters in nTOS: could it play a role in pathophysiology?Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Intra- and inter-observer reliabilities of cervical sagittal radiographic measurements among evaluators with different levels of training.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Article
- A novel rapid measurement method of cervical sagittal parameters based on the integrated inclinometer of a smartphone: a validity and reliability study.Annals of medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We introduced a novel method based on the iPhone's intrinsic photo edit function to measure sagittal parameters of the cervical spine. This study aimed to assess the validity of this new method compared with the picture archiving and communication system (PACS) method (the gold standard) and to test the reliability of this novel technique. One hundred consecutive patients admitted to our hospital diagnosed with cervical spondylotic myelopathy or cervical spondylotic radiculopathy were retrospectively reviewed. Four angles, including the C0-2 Cobb angle, C2-7 Cobb angle, T1S and neck tilt (NT), were assessed by iPhone and PACS. The validity and reliability were evaluated, and the time taken by both methods was compared. The ICCs of the validity of the C0-2 Cobb angle, C2-7 Cobb angle, T1S and NT were 0.960, 0.976, 0.980 and 0.946, respectively. The ICCs of the intraobserver reliability of the C0-2 Cobb angle, C2-7 Cobb angle, T1S and NT were 0.966, 0.983, 0.971 and 0.951, respectively. The ICCs of the interobserver reliability of the C0-2 Cobb angle, C2-7 Cobb angle, T1S and NT were 0.953, 0.972, 0.957 and 0.929, respectively. The Bland‒Altman plot of validity of the four angles revealed mean differences of 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, and 0.1 degrees with 95% CIs of 4.1, 4.1, 2.9, and 4.3 degrees, respectively. The iPhone measurement time (58.55 ± 4.17 s) was significantly less than that by the PACS (70.40 ± 2.92 s) when compared by the independent-samples T test (P < 0.001). This novel method using the iPhone's intrinsic photo edit function is accurate, reliable, fast and convenient when measuring cervical sagittal parameters.
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.