The centroid, two-line Cobb, and Harrison posterior tangent methods, when applied to measurements of kyphosis, are all reliable and have similar small error ranges. The centroid method does not give an accurate segmental analysis, uses more points and more time in clinical applications, and results in smaller angles of total kyphosis than the Cobb or posterior tangent methods. The posterior tangents are the slopes along the curve.

No abstract

Although both methods are reliable with the majority of correlation coefficients in the high range (ICC > 0.7), from the literature, the posterior tangent method has a smaller standard error of measurement than four-line Cobb methods. Global Cobb angles compare only the ends of the cervical curve and cannot delineate what happens to the curve internally. Posterior tangents are the slopes along the curve and can provide an analysis of any buckled areas of the cervical curve. The posterior tangent method is part of an engineering analysis (first derivative) and more accurately depicts cervical curvature than the Cobb method.

No abstract

No abstract

All four radiographic methods had high reliability and low mean absolute differences of observers' measurements. Because it lacks a segmental analysis, the TRALL method is not recommended. The centroid, Cobb, and Harrison posterior tangent methods provide global and segmental angles. However, the centroid segmental method requires three segments and is less useful for a stability analysis.

No abstract

The mean cervical lordosis for all groups could be closely modeled with a circle. Pain groups had hypolordosis and larger radiuses of curvature compared with the normal group. Circular modeling may be a valuable tool in the discrimination between normal lordosis and hypolordosis in normal and pain subjects.