ArticlePaediatrics & child health2025
Radiographic reporting in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Is there a discrepancy comparing radiologists' reports and surgeons' assessments?
Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Objectives: Cobb angle is a standard method for quantification of scoliosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis to guide treatment decisions. Precise and timely curve detection can ensure early referrals, amenable for bracing. Radiology reports serve as a guiding tool for family physicians to expedite specialist referrals. Therefore, accurate and reliable measurement of Cobb angle at the community level is crucial. This retrospective study investigated the agreement in Cobb angle measurement between radiologists and spine surgeons. Methods: Eighty radiographic reports (Cobb angle, Risser stage, and end vertebrae selection) completed by radiologists and spine surgeons were compared. To assess interrater reliability, interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. ICC < 0.70, 0.70 to 0.79, 0.80 to 89, and 0.9 to 0.99 were considered poor, fair, good, and excellent reliability, respectively. All radiographs were assessed for quality. Results: The agreement between spine surgeons and radiologists was poor (ICC = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.97). The agreement between spine surgeons and community radiologists was poor (ICC = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.66). Risser stage was not reported in 56 of the 80 reports. ICC between spine surgeons and radiologists for the Risser stage was poor (ICC = 0.625, 95% CI: 0.325 to 0.794). For end vertebrae identification, there was absolute agreement of end vertebrae identification in 23 of the 80 scans. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a significant disagreement in scoliosis measurement between radiologists and spine surgeons, which significantly impacts appropriateness of referrals. Methods to improve triaging using allied health professional (i.e., nurse practitioners) may help ensure that patients presenting with scoliosis are referred in a timely manner.
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.