Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reliability and validity of inexpensive and easily administered anthropometric clinical evaluation methods of postural asymmetry measurement in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

As accurate and reproducible measurements of spinal curvature are crucial in the examination of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), this systematic review aims to report on the reliability and validity of a range of inexpensive and easily administered anthropometric methods of postural asymmetry measurement in an AIS population, to inform practice in a clinical setting.

Methods

A systematic search of health research databases located studies assessing reliability and validity of inexpensive and easily administered anthropometric measures.

Results

Fourteen studies satisfied eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of included studies ranged from low to high. Validity studies were of moderate to high quality. In total, nine clinically applicable, inexpensive and easily administered anthropometric methods were identified, for assessing AIS curvature. All methods demonstrated high to very high inter-observer and intra-observer reliability. Reported criterion validity of the scoliometer and 2D photographs, when compared to Cobb angle assessed from radiographs, ranged from low to very high. iPhone measurements correlated well with scoliometer measurements. 2D photography results had a moderate to high correlation with 3D topography results.

Conclusions

Overall, strong levels of evidence exist for iPhone and scoliometer measurements, with a high to very high reliability and moderate to very high validity. Moderate levels of evidence exist for scoliometer with mathematical formula and clinical examination with moderate and low validity, respectively. Limited evidence exists for aesthetic tools TRACE and AI and 2D photography. These results indicate there are accurate and reproducible anthropometric measures that are inexpensive and applicable in therapy settings to assess postural asymmetry; however, these only exist for measurement in the transverse plane, despite 3D characteristics of AIS. Further research is required into an inexpensive and easily administered method that can assess postural asymmetry in all anatomical planes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Cheng JCY, Danielsson A, Morcueride JA (2008) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Lancet 371(9623):1527–1537. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60658-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang WJ, Yeung HY, Chu WC, Tang NL, Lee KM, Qiu Y, Burwell RG, Cheng JC (2011) Top theories for the etiopathogenesis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatric Orthop 31(1 Suppl):S14–S27. doi:10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181f73c12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hawes MC, O’Brien JP (2006) The transformation of spinal curvature into spinal deformity: pathological processes and implications for treatment. Scoliosis 1(1):3. doi:10.1186/1748-7161-1-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Rigo M (2011) Patient evaluation in idiopathic scoliosis: radiographic assessment, trunk deformity and back asymmetry. Physiother Theory Pract 27(1):7–25. doi:10.3109/09593985.2010.503990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Konieczny MR, Senyurt H, Krauspe R (2013) Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Child Orthop 7(1):3–9. doi:10.1007/s11832-012-0457-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Fong DY, Lee CF, Cheung KM, Cheng JC, Ng BK, Lam TP, Mak KH, Yip PS, Luk KD (2010) A meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of school scoliosis screening. Spine 35(10):1061–1071. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bcc835

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sabirin J, Bakri R, Buang SN, Abdullah AT, Shapie A (2010) School scoliosis screening programme-a systematic review. Med J Malays 65(4):261–267

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sox HC Jr, Berwick DM, Berg AO, Frame PS, Fryback DG, Grimes DA, Lawrence RS, Wallace RB, Washington AE, Wilson MEH, Woolf SH (1993) Screening for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: review article. JAMA 269(20):2667–2672. doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03500200081038

  9. Bunnell WP (1984) An objective criterion for scoliosis screening. J Bone Joint Surg 66(9):1381–1387

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Torell G, Nordwall A, Nachemson A (1981) The changing pattern of scoliosis treatment due to effective screening. J Bone Joint Surg 63(3):337–341

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Coelho DM, Bonagamba GH, Oliveira AS (2013) Scoliometer measurements of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Braz J Phys Ther 17(2):179–184. doi:10.1590/S1413-35552012005000081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kiely PJ, Grevitt MP (2008) Recent developments in scoliosis surgery. Orthop Trauma 22(1):42–47. doi:10.1016/j.cuor.2007.04.011

    Google Scholar 

  13. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Spratt KF, Peterson KK, Spoonamore MJ, Ponseti IV (2003) Health and function of patients with untreated idiopathic scoliosis: a 50-year natural history study. JAMA 289(5):559–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kotwicki T, Negrini S, Grivas TB, Rigo M, Maruyama T, Durmala J, Zaina F, Members of the International Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic Rehabilitation and Treatment (2009) Methodology of evaluation of morphology of the spine and the trunk in idiopathic scoliosis and other spinal deformities—6th SOSORT consensus paper. Scoliosis 4:26. doi:10.1186/1748-7161-4-26

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Knott P, Pappo E, Cameron M, Demauroy J, Rivard C, Kotwicki T, Zaina F, Wynne J, Stikeleather L, Bettany-Saltikov J, Grivas TB, Durmala J, Maruyama T, Negrini S, O’Brien JP, Rigo M (2014) SOSORT 2012 consensus paper: reducing x-ray exposure in pediatric patients with scoliosis. Scoliosis 9:4. doi:10.1186/1748-7161-9-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Vidal C, Ilharreborde B, Azoulay R, Sebag G, Mazda K (2013) Reliability of cervical lordosis and global sagittal spinal balance measurements in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 22(6):1362–1367. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2752-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Grivas TB (2008) Conservative scoliosis treatment: section V clinical evaluation and classification. Studies in health technology and informatics, vol 135. IOS Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kowalski IM, Protasiewicz-Faldowska H, Dwornik M, Pierożyński B, Raistenskis J, Kiebzak W (2014) Objective parallel-forms reliability assessment of 3 dimension real-time body posture screening tests. BMC Pediatr 14:221. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-14-221

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Zabjek KF, Leroux MA, Coillard C, Rivard CH, Prince F (2005) Evaluation of segmental postural characteristics during quiet standing in control and idiopathic scoliosis patients. Clin Biomech 20(5):483–490. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Somoskeoy S, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Bogyo C, Illes T (2012) Accuracy and reliability of coronal and sagittal spinal curvature data based on patient-specific three-dimensional models created by the EOS 2D/3D imaging system. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc 12(11):1052–1059. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Komeili A, Westover LM, Parent EC, Moreau M, El-Rich M, Adeeb S (2014) Surface topography asymmetry maps categorizing external deformity in scoliosis. Spine 14(6):973.e972–983.e972. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.09.032

    Google Scholar 

  22. Brink Y, Louw Q, Grimmer-Somers K (2011) The quality of evidence of psychometric properties of three-dimensional spinal posture-measuring instruments. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:93. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-93

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Fortin C, Feldman DE, Cheriet F, Gravel D, Gauthier F, Labelle H (2012) Reliability of a quantitative clinical posture assessment tool among persons with idiopathic scoliosis. Physiotherapy 98(1):64–75. doi:10.1016/j.physio.2010.12.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shaw M, Adam CJ, Izatt MT, Licina P, Askin GN (2012) Use of the iPhone for Cobb angle measurement in scoliosis. Eur Spine J 21(6):1062–1068. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2059-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Pub Lib Sci Med Coll 6(7):e1000100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

    Google Scholar 

  26. Brink Y, Louw QA (2012) Clinical instruments: reliability and validity critical appraisal. Int J Eval Clin Pract 18(6):1126–1132. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01707.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39(2):175–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine 28(12):1290–1299. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000065484.95996.AF

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Munro BH, Visintainer MA (2005) Statistical methods for health care research, vol 1, 5th edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia

  30. Chowanska J, Kotwicki T, Rosadzinski K, Sliwinski Z (2012) School screening for scoliosis: can surface topography replace examination with scoliometer? Scoliosis 7:9. doi:10.1186/1748-7161-7-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. DeWilde L, Plasschaert F, Cattoir H, Uyttendaele D (1998) Examination of the back using the Bunnell scoliometer in a Belgian school population. Acta Orthop Belg 64(2):136–143

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. deOliveira TS, Candotti CT, LaTorre M, Pelinson PP, Furlanetto TS, Kutchak FM, Loss JF (2012) Validity and reproducibility of the measurements obtained using the flexicurve instrument to evaluate the angles of thoracic and lumbar curvatures of the spine in the sagittal plane. Rehabil Res Pract 2012:186156. doi:10.1155/2012/186156

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cote P, Kreitz BG, Cassidy JD, Dzus AK, Martel J (1998) A study of the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of the scoliometer and Adam’s forward bend test. Spine 23(7):796–802 (discussion 803)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Fortin C (2010) Developpement et validation d’un outil clinique pour l’analyse quantitative de la posture aupres de personnes atteintes d’une scoliose idiopathique. Universite de Montreal, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fortin C, Feldman DE, Cheriet F, Labelle H (2010) Validity of a quantitative clinical measurement tool of trunk posture in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35(19):E988–E994. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cd2cd2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Amendt LE, Ause-Ellias KL, Eybers JL, Wadsworth CT, Nielsen DH, Weinstein SL (1990) Validity and reliability testing of the scoliometer. Phys Ther 70(2):108–117

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Balg F, Juteau M, Theoret C, Svotelis A, Grenier G (2014) Validity and reliability of the iPhone to measure rib hump in scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 34(8):774–779. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000000195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Korovessis PG, Stamatakis MV (1996) Prediction of Scoliotic cobb angle with the use of the scoliometer. Spine 21(14):1661–1666

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Izatt MT, Bateman GR, Adam CJ (2012) Evaluation of the iPhone with an acrylic sleeve versus the scoliometer for rib hump measurement in scoliosis. Scoliosis 7(1):14. doi:10.1186/1748-7161-7-14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Driscoll M, Fortier-Tougas F, Labelle H, Parent S, Mac-Thong J (2014) Evaluation of an apparatus to be combined with a smartphone for the early detection of spinal deformities. Scoliosis 25(9):10. doi:10.1186/1748-7161-9-10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Murrell GA, Coonrad RW, Moorman CT 3rd, Fitch RD (1993) An assessment of the reliability of the scoliometer. Spine 18(6):709–712

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Galatz LM, Sturm PF, Bomze S, Simmens S (1999) Interobserver reliability of scoliometer measurements of rotational deformity in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. In: Reasearch into spinal deformities 2, vol 59. ST HEAL T, pp 242–245

  43. Bonagamba GH, Coelho DM, Oliveira AS (2010) Inter and intra-rater reliability of the scoliometer. Revista brasileira de fisioterapia 14(5):432–438

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sapkas G, Papagelopoulos PJ, Kateros K, Koundis GL, Boscainos PJ, Koukou UI, Katonis P (2003) Prediction of Cobb angle in idiopathic adolescent scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 411:32–39. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000068360.47147.30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Zaina F, Negrini S, Atanasio S (2009) TRACE (trunk aesthetic clinical evaluation), a routine clinical tool to evaluate aesthetics in Scoliosis patients: development from the aesthetic index (AI) and repeatability. Scoliosis 4:3. doi:10.1186/1748-7161-4-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Grosso C, Negrini S, Boniolo A, Negrini AA (2002) The validity of clinical examination in adolescent spinal deformities. Stud Health Technol Inform 91:123–125

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Patias P, Grivas TB, Kaspiris A, Aggouris C, Drakoutos E (2010) A review of the tunk surface metrics used as scoliosis and other deformity evaluation indices. Scoliosis 5:12. doi:10.1186/1748-7161-5-12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Pearsall DJ, Reid JG, Hedden DM (1992) Comparison of three noninvasive methods for measuring scoliosis. Phys Ther 72(9):648–657

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Lexell J, Downham D (2005) How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehab 84:719–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rankin G, Stokes M (1998) Reliability of assessment tools in rehabilitation: an illustration of appropriate statistical analyses. Clin Rehab 12(3):187–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Fergusson D, Cogo E, Horsley T, Moher D (2008) Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 61(5):422–434. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Science and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia

    Ashleigh Prowse & Rodney Pope

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

    Paul Gerdhem

  3. Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    Paul Gerdhem

  4. Department of Physiotherapy, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden

    Allan Abbott

  5. Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Allan Abbott

Authors
  1. Ashleigh Prowse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rodney Pope
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Gerdhem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Allan Abbott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashleigh Prowse.

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 1 and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prowse, A., Pope, R., Gerdhem, P. et al. Reliability and validity of inexpensive and easily administered anthropometric clinical evaluation methods of postural asymmetry measurement in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 25, 450–466 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3961-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3961-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation