2009
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-0913-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A review of methods for quantitative evaluation of spinal curvature

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to provide a complete overview of the existing methods for quantitative evaluation of spinal curvature from medical images, and to summarize the relevant publications, which may not only assist in the introduction of other researchers to the field, but also be a valuable resource for studying the existing methods or developing new methods and evaluation strategies. Key evaluation issues and future considerations, supported by the results of the overview, are also discussed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
148
0
27

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 220 publications
(177 citation statements)
references
References 101 publications
2
148
0
27
Order By: Relevance
“…It is noteworthy, still regarding the Cobb method for thoracic kyphosis evaluation, that it presents limitations, for despite having good intra-and interresearchers agreement values 22 , with error values ranging from 3 to 10°, it has MDC (Mininum Detectable Change) values ranging between 9 and 10°2 3 . Such MDC values reflect the amount of change in the evaluation required to determine that there was a true change and not just a measurement error 24 , i.e., the eight degrees of difference found in the study of Junges et al 20 may be a measurement error and not clinical change one.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is noteworthy, still regarding the Cobb method for thoracic kyphosis evaluation, that it presents limitations, for despite having good intra-and interresearchers agreement values 22 , with error values ranging from 3 to 10°, it has MDC (Mininum Detectable Change) values ranging between 9 and 10°2 3 . Such MDC values reflect the amount of change in the evaluation required to determine that there was a true change and not just a measurement error 24 , i.e., the eight degrees of difference found in the study of Junges et al 20 may be a measurement error and not clinical change one.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rather, it is well known that radiographic Cobb angle measurements in scoliosis vary by around 5 o due to inter and intra-observer error [15], so this comparison range is necessitated by the uncertainty in the radiographic measurements used for model comparison.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first step of our approach is to fit a third-order spline 14 (called the central spline (CS) in this paper) to a set of points located in the center of each vertebral body. These points can be provided by a user in the form of user clicks (our approach in this paper), or detected automatically using pattern recognition techniques.…”
Section: Signal Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%