ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2023
Cosmetic evaluation in type II congenital scoliosis with long-spanned curve: a case-matched comparison with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of cosmetic shoulder balance in Lenke type 1 and 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis across different observational perspectives.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Association between trunk aesthetics and underling scoliosis severity and curve type in adolescents: evaluation of traditional clinical scores and novel automated indices from rasterstereographic imaging.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025Observational
- Exploring the use of biphasic quantitative thoracic computed tomography to evaluate halo-pelvic traction in managing severe adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is an acknowledged discrepancy between radiographic and cosmetic parameters for patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). However, no study has specifically evaluated cosmesis in patients with congenital scoliosis (CS). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the cosmetic differences between patients with CS and case-matched patients with AIS and to investigate the correlation between radiological measurements and clinical cosmetic assessment indices. Methods: A total of 37 adolescents with CS and 37 sex-, age-, and curve magnitude-matched patients with AIS were included. Cobb angle, shoulder height difference (SHD), coronal balance (CB), T1 tilt, first rib angle (FRA), clavicle angle (CA), clavicle-rib cage intersection (CRCI), and apical vertebra translation (AVT) were measured in the full X-ray of the spine. Shoulder area index 1 (SAI1), shoulder area index 2 (SAI2), shoulder angle (SA), axilla angle (AA), thoracolumbar area index (TLAI), and right and left waist angle difference (RLWAD) were measured on the clinical images from a posterior view. Hump index (HI) was measured in the forward bending photography. All patients completed the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Results: No significant difference was noted in the radiographic parameters between the AIS and CS groups (P>0.05). However, patients with CS exhibited significantly lower SAI1 (0.91 Conclusions: As compared with age-, gender-, and curve pattern-matched patients with AIS, patients with CS exhibited worse cosmesis and had clinically significantly lower SRS-22 scores despite having relatively small clinical differences. Although the radiographic parameters may not always align with clinical presentation, this discrepancy could be observed in both patients with CS and those with AIS.
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.