TY - JOUR
T1 - Novel screening tool for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis
T2 - a reliability study
AU - Engel, Roger
AU - McAviney, Jeb
AU - Graham, Petra L.
AU - Anderson, Peter J.
AU - Brown, Benjamin T.
PY - 2022/6
Y1 - 2022/6
N2 - Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between a web-based scoliosis screening tool and a standard screening procedure. Methods: Sixty participants were selected (median age, 12 years; 75% were women) and separated into 2 groups: those with unknown spinal curvature status and those with confirmed scoliosis. Each participant was assessed by 2 blinded assessors, with one measuring the angle of trunk rotation using a scoliometer and the second using a web-based screening application. The app provided a relative risk score for having scoliosis based on a weighted algorithm. Those with an angle of trunk rotation ≥7° or risk score >2 were deemed as being at risk for having scoliosis. Results: There was fair agreement (kappa = 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.55; P < .001) between the app and the scoliometer among the unconfirmed cases. The McNemar test indicated a difference in the proportion of positive tests (P = .001), whereby the screening app produced a significantly higher number of positive tests (15/53 = 28.3%) compared to the standard screening procedure (4/53 = 7.5%) for unconfirmed cases. Among the confirmed cases, the app correctly identified 5 out of 7 (sensitivity: 71%; 95% CI, 29%-96%) participants, whereas the scoliometer correctly identified 6 out of 7 (sensitivity: 86%; 95% CI, 42%-100%) participants. Conclusion: These findings indicate fair agreement between the app and the scoliometer, though it was not possible to precisely estimate the sensitivity of the app in this study.
AB - Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between a web-based scoliosis screening tool and a standard screening procedure. Methods: Sixty participants were selected (median age, 12 years; 75% were women) and separated into 2 groups: those with unknown spinal curvature status and those with confirmed scoliosis. Each participant was assessed by 2 blinded assessors, with one measuring the angle of trunk rotation using a scoliometer and the second using a web-based screening application. The app provided a relative risk score for having scoliosis based on a weighted algorithm. Those with an angle of trunk rotation ≥7° or risk score >2 were deemed as being at risk for having scoliosis. Results: There was fair agreement (kappa = 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.55; P < .001) between the app and the scoliometer among the unconfirmed cases. The McNemar test indicated a difference in the proportion of positive tests (P = .001), whereby the screening app produced a significantly higher number of positive tests (15/53 = 28.3%) compared to the standard screening procedure (4/53 = 7.5%) for unconfirmed cases. Among the confirmed cases, the app correctly identified 5 out of 7 (sensitivity: 71%; 95% CI, 29%-96%) participants, whereas the scoliometer correctly identified 6 out of 7 (sensitivity: 86%; 95% CI, 42%-100%) participants. Conclusion: These findings indicate fair agreement between the app and the scoliometer, though it was not possible to precisely estimate the sensitivity of the app in this study.
KW - Adolescent
KW - Scoliosis
KW - Reproducibility of Results
KW - Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85139035738&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jmpt.2022.08.001
DO - 10.1016/j.jmpt.2022.08.001
M3 - Article
C2 - 36184322
SN - 0161-4754
VL - 45
SP - 358
EP - 364
JO - Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
JF - Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
IS - 5
ER -