↓ Skip to main content

A reliability and validity study for Scolioscan: a radiation-free scoliosis assessment system using 3D ultrasound imaging

Overview of attention for article published in Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
120 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A reliability and validity study for Scolioscan: a radiation-free scoliosis assessment system using 3D ultrasound imaging
Published in
Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13013-016-0074-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yong-Ping Zheng, Timothy Tin-Yan Lee, Kelly Ka-Lee Lai, Benjamin Hon-Kei Yip, Guang-Quan Zhou, Wei-Wei Jiang, James Chung-Wai Cheung, Man-Sang Wong, Bobby King-Wah Ng, Jack Chun-Yiu Cheng, Tsz-Ping Lam

Abstract

Radiographic evaluation for patients with scoliosis using Cobb method is the current gold standard, but radiography has radiation hazards. Several groups have recently demonstrated the feasibility of using 3D ultrasound for the evaluation of scoliosis. Ultrasound imaging is radiation-free, comparatively more accessible, and inexpensive. However, a reliable and valid 3D ultrasound system ready for clinical scoliosis assessment has not yet been reported. Scolioscan is a newly developed system targeted for scoliosis assessment in clinics by using coronal images of spine generated by a 3D ultrasound volume projection imaging method. The aim of this study is to test the reliability of spine deformity measurement of Scolioscan and its validity compared to the gold standard Cobb angle measurements from radiography in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients. Prospective study divided into two stages: 1) Investigation of intra- and inter- reliability between two operators for acquiring images using Scolioscan and among three raters for measuring spinal curves from those images; 2) Correlation between the Cobb angle obtained from radiography by a medical doctor and the spine curve angle obtained using Scolioscan (Scolioscan angle). The raters for ultrasound images and the doctors for evaluating radiographic images were mutually blinded. The two stages of tests involved 20 (80 % females, total of 26 angles, age of 16.4 ± 2.7 years, and Cobb angle of 27.6 ± 11.8°) and 49 (69 % female, 73 angles, 15.8 ± 2.7 years and 24.8 ± 9.7°) AIS patients, respectively. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots and root-mean-square differences (RMS) were employed to determine correlations, which interpreted based on defined criteria. We demonstrated a very good intra-rater and intra-operator reliability for Scolioscan angle measurement with ICC larger than 0.94 and 0.88, respectively. Very good inter-rater and inter-operator reliability was also demonstrated, with both ICC larger than 0.87. For the thoracic deformity measurement, the RMS were 2.5 and 3.3° in the intra- and inter-operator tests, and 1.5 and 3.6° in the intra- and inter-rater tests, respectively. The RMS differences were 3.1, 3.1, 1.6, 3.7° in the intra- and inter-operator and intra- and inter-rater tests, respectively, for the lumbar angle measurement. Moderate to strong correlations (R(2) > 0.72) were observed between the Scolioscan angles and Cobb angles for both the thoracic and lumbar regions. It was noted that the Scolioscan angle slightly underestimated the spinal deformity in comparison with Cobb angle, and an overall regression equation y = 1.1797x (R(2) = 0.76) could be used to translate the Scolioscan angle (x) to Cobb angle (y) for this group of patients. The RMS difference between Scolioscan angle and Cobb angle was 4.7 and 6.2°, with and without the correlation using the overall regression equation. We showed that Scolioscan is reliable for measuring coronal deformity for patients with AIS and appears promising in screening large numbers of patients, for progress monitoring, and evaluation of treatment outcomes. Due to it being radiation-free and relatively low-cost, Scolioscan has potential to be widely implemented and may contribute to reducing radiation dose during serial monitoring.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 137 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 15%
Student > Master 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Researcher 9 6%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 49 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 22%
Engineering 19 14%
Computer Science 7 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Physics and Astronomy 3 2%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 61 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#4,710,122
of 23,223,705 outputs
Outputs from Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders
#13
of 97 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,092
of 339,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,223,705 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 97 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.