ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
EOS imaging and scoliosis: the clinical applicability and intra-rater repeatability of measures.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2026. 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.
- The SINTER study: a recall-by-genotype design with multidimensional musculoskeletal phenotyping across internal-medicine outpatient clinics.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Advancements in sagittal alignment parameters and management of adult spine deformities.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEOS bi-planar imaging enables three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions of the spine and pelvis with segmental vertebral measurements in three planes from a neutral pelvis. This study evaluates the repeatability of these measurements and the accuracy in detecting true changes.
methodsTwenty patients from four clinical backgrounds (surgical threshold, bracing threshold, micro-dose, and in-brace) were included. EOS bi-planar "full spine" images were modelled and then subsequently re-modelled at least 4 weeks later by the same researcher. All 3D measurements were recorded and compared.
resultsThe average modelling interval was 6.7 weeks. Paired measures indicated high agreement, except for planes of maximal curvature (PMC): thoracic (Spearman's = 0.67; p < 0.05) and lumbar (Spearman's = 0.40; p > 0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) showed excellent agreement, with thoracic and lumbar Cobb angles averaging 0.99. Sagittal measurements ranged from 0.93 (L1/S1 lordosis) to 0.96 (T1/T12 kyphosis). Pelvic parameters ranged from 0.88 (obliquity) to 0.99 (tilt). The transverse profile ranged from 0.82 (apical thoracic rotation) to 0.98 (average lumbar rotation). Repeatability (2.77 × technical error of measurement [TEM]) was ± 4.4° for Cobb angles, ± 7.7° for sagittal profile, ± 5.0° for pelvic parameters, ± 4.8° for transverse profile, and ± 100.4° for automated thoracic and lumbar PMC. With strong outliers excluded, thoracic PMC was ± 16.2° and lumbar PMC was ± 15.5°.
conclusion3D EOS measurements demonstrate excellent intra-rater ICC repeatability despite notable true measurement error that should define future success criteria. Semi-automated modelling provides quick 3D spinal alignment measurements from a neutral pelvis, with this study being the first to report TEM for 3D EOS reconstructions. PMC disagreement indicates the need for further investigation.
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.