ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Clinical relevance among optical, ultrasonic, and radiographic imaging in scoliosis assessment.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough optical (OPI) and ultrasonic imaging (USI) have each been independently investigated as non-invasive alternatives to radiography (Xray) in scoliosis assessment, no study has yet directly compared their clinical performance. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical agreement and validity of OPI and USI, using Xray as the reference standard.
methodsRadiographic Cobb angle served as the gold standard for clinical evaluation of two non-invasive methods. The OPI-angle was derived from spine models fitted to digitised surface data based on structured-light, while USI-angle was measured from images acquired using an ultrasonic system. All scans were performed in the same upright posture. For analysis, 14 participants with suspected scoliosis completed all three assessments (Xray, OPI, USI) for direct three-way comparison. Additionally, 29 participants underwent Xray and OPI, and 25 underwent Xray and USI, enabling respective pairwise comparisons with the radiographic Cobb angle. The correlation, agreement, and measurement error were evaluated, with subgroup analyses based on spinal region, curve severity, and apical vertebral rotation (AVR) level.
resultsBoth non-invasive methods showed strong correlations with the radiographic Cobb angle (OPI: r = 0.873, 95% CI: 0.734-0.938; USI: r = 0.902, 95% CI: 0.791-0.953), with mean absolute differences (MADs) of 4.3° and 4.2°, respectively. The correlation between OPI- and USI-angles was r = 0.795 (95% CI: 0.590-0.898). Subgroup analyses revealed stronger correlations in the thoracic compared to the lumbar region for both methods. USI-angle showed a smaller MAD in mild than in moderate curves (4.3° vs. 7.1°). Optimal performance for both methods was observed at 5-10° AVR (OPI: MAD = 3.9°, r = 0.846; USI: MAD = 5.2°, r = 0.835).
conclusionsBoth OPI and USI demonstrated strong agreement with radiographic measurements in scoliosis assessment, supporting their potential as useful non-invasive tools for clinical screening and monitoring applications. Additional validation with larger sample sizes, different severities, and various body mass index levels is required to further improve their clinical efficacy and applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42089996What 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.