Comparison of reliabilities and repetitiveness of six standard methods for assessing the sagittal alignment of the cervical spine

English Keywords:Cervical spine  Curvature  Measuring method

English Abstract:

  【Abstract】 Objectives: To compare the reliabilities and repetitiveness of six standard methods of assessing cervical sagittal alignment. Methods: Eighty patient′s lateral cervical radiographs were selected. Three radiologic doctors independently evaluated the sagittal alignment by using six standard methods which were divided into distance and angle group. The distance group included cervical curvature index(CCI), cervical vertebra centroid line(CCL) and the Borden methods. The angle group included C1-C7 Cobb, C2-C7 Cobb and the Harrison method. The measurements were performed again two weeks later. Intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities and repetitiveness were measured. Results: The reliabilities and repetitiveness of six standard methods were good. In the distance group, the method with the highest reliability was Borden method(r=0.938-0.968), the next two were CCL(r=0.855-0.908) and CCI method(r=0.775-0.821); the method with the best repetitiveness was Borden method(r=0.888-0.915), the next two were CCI(r=0.819-0.862) and CCL(r=0.810-0.859) method. In the angle group, the method with the highest reliability was C2-C7 Cobb(r=0.871-0.895) method, the next two were Harrison(r=0.830-0.885) and C1-C7 Cobb(r=0.752-0.836) method; the method with the best repetitiveness was Harrison method(r=0.868-0.880), the next two were C2-C7 Cobb(r=0.859-0.876) and C1-C7 Cobb method(r=0.703-0.837). Conclusions: All six methods have good reliabilities and repetitiveness. The Borden method has the highest reliability and repetitiveness in the distance group. The C2-C7 Cobb has the highest reliability and the Harrison method has the highest repetitiveness in the angle group.