ArticleAsian spine journal2026
Methodological evaluation of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for Cobb angle measurement in females with idiopathic scoliosis: a reliability and validity study in Thailand.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designComparative study. PURPOSE: To evaluate the concurrent validity, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater reliability of Cobb measurement in the coronal plane via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) images and plain radiographs in female patients with idiopathic scoliosis (IS). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: IS, which affects primarily females, is commonly monitored at least biannually with spine radiographs according to the Cobb method. DEXA is a safer imaging method because it involves less radiation exposure. Although DEXA has potential for assessing spinal alignment, its validity and reliability in measuring Cobb angles require further verification.
methodsA repeated-measures design was used to evaluate the test-retest reliability of measuring spinal alignment with DEXA. Eighty-six women aged 18-20 years with a diagnosis of IS, who had undergone spinal radiography within the previous 3 months, underwent two DEXA scans (DEXA1 and DEXA2) 1 week apart. Cobb angles were measured on radiographs, DEXA1, and DEXA2 by two independent assessors. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess test-retest reliability and inter-rater reliability. Concurrent validity was examined using Pearson's correlation coefficients between Cobb angles obtained from radiographs and those from DEXA1 and DEXA2 images.
resultsCobb angle measurements from DEXA images had excellent test-retest and nter-rater reliability (ICC>0.90) and very strong concurrent validity with radiographs (r >0.90, p <0.001). The mean difference in Cobb angles between radiographs and DEXA images ranged from 2.37° to 2.91°, whereby the curves were less severe on DEXA images.
conclusionsDEXA has consistent reliability and validity for evaluating spinal alignment and is potentially useful in monitoring curve progression in young populations.
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.