Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Observer reliability between juvenile and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in measurement of stable Cobb’s angle

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

Abstract

It is a measurement of Cobb’s angles between adolescent (AIS) and juvenile (JIS) idiopathic scoliosis who had stable curves (variation <5 degrees) in more than three visits. Main objective of this paper is to measure inter- and intra-observer reliability of measurements between AIS and JIS who had stable curves in regular follow-up. Twenty-nine JIS and 44 AIS patients who had stable curves without bracing were identified using PACS system. Two observers independently measured Cobb’s angle twice on first, during follow-up and final radiogram using computer-based digital radiogram. Both observers were given pre-decided level of upper and lower end plates. Inter- and intra-observer reliability of the measurement was calculated using Pearson correlation-coefficient test between JIS and AIS group. There was no significant difference in Cobb’s angle in all measurements by both observers either in JIS (p = 0.756, range 0.706–0.815; ANOVA) or AIS (p = 0.871, range 0.795–0.929; ANOVA) group which suggested that there is no significant difference in Cobb’s angle in repeated measurements. Intra-observer reliability for JIS (r = 0.600, range 0.521–0.751; Pearson test) was less than AIS (r = 0.969, range 0.943–0.984; Pearson test); and similarly, inter-observer reliability for JIS (r = 0.547, Pearson test) was also less than AIS (r = 0.961, Pearson test) which indicates that Cobb’s angle measurement is less reliable in patients who have juvenile idiopathic scoliosis. Using the identical condition for measurements in both the groups, we could find only one reason for less reliability in JIS group and that is poor demarcation of the vertebral end-plates in this group. This poor inter- and intra-observer reliability in JIS due to ill-defined endplates can be reduced by measuring all previous curves along with latest curves at the same time during the follow-up of patients with JIS to decide about the progression of curves and treatment options.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bansal GJ (2006) Digital radiography. A comparison with modern conventional imaging. Postgrad Med J 82:425–428. doi:10.1136/pgmj.2005.038448

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Brooks HL, Azen SP, Gerberg E, Brooks R, Chan L (1975) Scoliosis: a prospective epidemiological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57:968–972

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown JC, Axelgaard J, Howson DC (1984) Multicenter trial of a noninvasive stimulation method for idiopathic scoliosis: a summary of early treatment results. Spine 9:382–387. doi:10.1097/00007632-198405000-00010

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Carman DL, Browne RH, Birch JG (1990) Measurement of scoliosis and kyphosis radiographs: intraobserver and interobserver variation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:328–333

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheung J, Wever DJ, Veldhuizen AG et al (2002) The reliability of quantitative analysis on digital images of the scoliotic spine. Eur Spine J 11:535–542. doi:10.1007/s00586-001-0381-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chockalingam N, Dangerfield PH, Giakas G, Cochrane T, Dorgan JC (2002) Computer-assisted Cobb measurement of scoliosis. Eur Spine J 11:353–357. doi:10.1007/s00586-002-0386-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cobb JR (1948) Outline for the study of scoliosis. In: Instructional course lectures, vol. 5. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Ann Arbor, pp 61–75

  8. Dang NR, Moreau MJ, Hill DL, Mahood JK, Raso J (2005) Inter-observer reproducibility and intra-observer reliability of the radiographic parameters in the spinal deformity study group’s AIS radiographic measurement manual. Spine 30(9):1064–1069. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000160840.51621.6b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dawson EG, Smith RK, McNiece GM (1978) Radiographic evaluation of scoliosis. A reassessment and introduction of the scoliosis chariot. Clin Orthop Relat Res 131:151–155

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Facanha-Filho FA, Winter RB, Lonstein JE et al (2001) Measurement accuracy in congenital scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:42–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldberg MS, Poitras B, Mayo NE et al (1988) Observer variation in assessing spinal curvature and skeletal development in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 13:1371–1377. doi:10.1097/00007632-198812000-00008

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. James JIP (1976) Scoliosis, 2nd ed edn. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburg, pp 10–11

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kuklo TR, Potter BK, O’Brien MF et al (2005) Reliability analysis for digital adolescent idiopathic scoliosis measurement. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:152–159. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000148094.75219.b0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuklo TR, Potter BK, Polly DW Jr et al (2005) Reliability analysis for manual adolescent idiopathic scoliosis measurements. Spine 30:444–454. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000153702.99342.9c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kuklo TR, Potter BK, Schroeder TM, O’Brien MF (2006) Comparison of manual and digital measurements in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 11(31):1240–1246. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000217774.13433.a7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Loder RT, Urquhart A, Steen H et al (1995) Variability in Cobb’s angle measurement in children with congenital scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77:768–770

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Loder RT, Spiegel D, Gutknecht S, Kleist K, Ly T, Mehbod A (2004) The assessment of intraobserver and interobserver error in the measurement of noncongenital scoliosis in children ≤10 years of age. Spine 22(29):2548–2553. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000144828.72721.d8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lonstein JE, Carlson JM (1984) The prediction of curve progression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during growth. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66:1061–1071

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. McCollough NCIII (1986) Nonoperative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis using surface electrical stimulation. Spine 11:802–804. doi:10.1097/00007632-198610000-00010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mok JM, Berven SH, Diab M, Hackbarth M, Hu SS, Devieren V (2008) Comparison of observer variation in conventional and three digital radiographic methods used in the evaluation of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 6(33):681–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Morrissy RT, Goldsmith GS, Hall EC et al (1990) Measurement of the Cobb angle on radiographs of patients who have scoliosis: evaluation of intrinsic error. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:320–327

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Munro BH (1997) Correlation. In: Munro BH (ed) Statistical methods for health care research, 3rd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 224–245

    Google Scholar 

  23. Oda M, Rauh S, Gregory PB et al (1982) The significance of roentgenographic measurement in scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 2:378–382

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Rogala EJ, Drummond DS, Gurr J (1978) Scoliosis: incidence and natural history. A prospective epidemiological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60:173–176

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 

  26. Sevastikoglou JA, Bergquist E (1969) Evaluation of the reliability if radiological methods for registration of scoliosis. Acta Orthop Scand 40:608–613

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Shea KG, Stevens PM, Nelson M et al (1998) A comparison of manual versus computer-assisted radiographic measurement intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. Spine 23:551–555. doi:10.1097/00007632-199803010-00007

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Stokes IAF, Aronsson DD (2006) Computer-assisted algorithms improve reliability of King classification and Cobb angle measurement of scoliosis. Spine 6(31):665–670. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000203708.49972.ab

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wills BPD, Auerbach JD, Zhu X, Caird MS, Horn BD, Flynn JM, Drummond DS, Dormans JP, Ecker ML (2007) Comparison of Cobb angle measurement of scoliosis radiographs with preselected end vertebrae. Traditional versus digital acquisition. Spine 1(32):98–105. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000251086.84420.d1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zetterberg C, Hansson T, Lidstrom J, Irstram L, Andersson G (1983) Daytine postural changes of the scoliosis spine. Orthop Trans 7:7–8

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

Each author certifies that he has no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interests, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Scoliosis Research Institute, Korea University Guro Hospital, #80 Guro-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul, 152-703, South Korea

    Hitesh N. Modi, Ting Chen, Seung Woo Suh, Satyen Mehta, S. Srinivasalu & Jae-Hyuk Yang

  2. Department of Orthopedics, Rare Disease Institute, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea

    Hae-Ryong Song

Authors
  1. Hitesh N. Modi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ting Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seung Woo Suh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Satyen Mehta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Srinivasalu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jae-Hyuk Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hae-Ryong Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seung Woo Suh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Modi, H.N., Chen, T., Suh, S.W. et al. Observer reliability between juvenile and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in measurement of stable Cobb’s angle. Eur Spine J 18, 52–58 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0834-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0834-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation