ArticleSpine deformity2024
Reliability of semi-automated spinal measurement software.
Article in Spine deformity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn the treatment of patients with adult spinal deformity, analysis of spinopelvic balance is essential in clinical assessment and surgical planning. There is currently no gold standard for measurement, whether done by hand or with digital software. New semi-automated software exists that purports to increase efficiency, but its reliability is unknown in the literature.
methodsFull spine X-rays were retrospectively reviewed from 25 adult patients seen between 2014 and 2017. Patients were included if they had > 5 cm of sagittal imbalance and radiographs of sufficient quality to perform balance measurements, without prior surgical spinal fusion and/or instrumentation. Spinopelvic parameters were measured in two radiographic programs: one with basic, non-spine-specific measurement tools (eUnity, Client Outlook, Waterloo, Canada); and a second with spine-specific semi-automated measurement tools (Sectra, Sectra AB, Linköping, Sweden). Balance parameters included SVA, PI, PT, and LL. Data were compared by examining inter-rater and inter-program reliability using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsThe subjects' mean age was 67.9 ± 13.8 years old, and 32% were male. The inter-program reliability was strong, with ICC values greater than 0.91 for each parameter. Similarly, there was strong inter-observer reliability with ICC values greater than 0.88. These results persisted on delayed repeat measurement (p < 0.001 for all measurements).
conclusionThere is excellent inter-observer and inter-program reliability between the basic PACS and semi-automated programs. These data demonstrate that the purported efficiency of semi-automated measurement programs does not come at the cost of measurement reliability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38214827What 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.