ArticleSpine deformity2024
Does radiographic calibration affect linear radiographic measurements in a large pediatric spine registry?
Article in Spine deformity, 2024. 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.
- Magnetically controlled growing rods increase 3D true spine length in idiopathic early onset scoliosis patients: results from a multicenter study.Spine deformity · 2025Article
- Deep learning classification of pediatric spinal radiographs for use in large scale imaging registries.Spine deformity · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLarge registries are increasingly at the forefront of modern pediatric spine research, with manual, centralized, trained radiographic measurement serving as the gold standard for spine research. However, there is limited data regarding the reliability of registry measurements which may be subject to differences in radiographic calibration. We undertook this study to evaluate reliability of T1-T12 height, L1-S1 height, and coronal balance measurements for a large registry of early onset scoliosis patients.
methodsThree trained technicians from the Pediatric Spine Study Group measured 43 radiographs for T1-T12, L1-S1, and coronal balance using 3 different calibration techniques. All radiographs were AP views of patients with magnetically controlled growing rods with known diameters. The calibration techniques used a pre-export manually drawn line, a digital automatically generated computerized marker, and the diameter of a magnetically controlled growing rod. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to determine reliability.
results1161 measurements were performed. For each of the three raters, coronal balance, T1-T12 height and L1-S1 height had excellent agreement regardless of the calibration technique (alpha 0.93-1.0). Among the parameters, coronal balance had the worst inter-rater reliability, whereas there was excellent interrater reliability regarding T1-T12 height and L1-S1 height (alpha 0.91-0.99).
conclusionThere was excellent agreement among reviewers and between the 3 different calibration techniques. While calibration using rod diameter served as the gold standard, this data shows that other standard calibration methods were adequate and achieved excellent reliability for registry radiographs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38147269What 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.