A comparison of traditional protractor versus Oxford Cobbometer radiographic measurement: intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles.
STUDY DESIGN: A comparison between measurement of radiographs using a traditional protractor method and the Oxford Cobbometer, which has the potential to reduce error. OBJECTIVE: To assess measurement variability of Cobb angles using the Oxford Cobbometer and to compare it to that of measurements m...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2005
|
| _version_ | 1797065975905910784 |
|---|---|
| author | Rosenfeldt, M Harding, I Hauptfleisch, J Fairbank, J |
| author_facet | Rosenfeldt, M Harding, I Hauptfleisch, J Fairbank, J |
| author_sort | Rosenfeldt, M |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | STUDY DESIGN: A comparison between measurement of radiographs using a traditional protractor method and the Oxford Cobbometer, which has the potential to reduce error. OBJECTIVE: To assess measurement variability of Cobb angles using the Oxford Cobbometer and to compare it to that of measurements made using the traditional protractor method. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Studies of the Cobb method have multiple sources of error and subsequent intraobserver variability. Estimates of intraobserver variability are from 2.8 degrees to 10 degrees. METHOD: Fifty-three scoliosis curves were measured by 3 examiners. Two measurement sets were performed using the traditional protractor method and two measurement sets performed using the Oxford Cobbometer. RESULTS: For the protractor method, intraobserver variability was 9.01 degrees (95% confidence interval 7.32-10.88). For the Cobbometer method, the value was 5.77 degrees (95% confidence interval 3.25-7.63). The difference between error for construction and Cobbometer methods was significant (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a lower intraobserver variability for the Oxford Cobbometer compared to the traditional construction method. The Oxford Cobbometer, besides being quick and easy to use, does not require the drawing of lines on films or the use of wide diameter radiographic markers and hence removes some sources of intrinsic error incurred during the traditional method of measuring Cobb angles. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:35:55Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:46445630-434e-4245-ad7e-87997e16157a |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:35:55Z |
| publishDate | 2005 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:46445630-434e-4245-ad7e-87997e16157a2022-03-26T15:12:41ZA comparison of traditional protractor versus Oxford Cobbometer radiographic measurement: intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:46445630-434e-4245-ad7e-87997e16157aEnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2005Rosenfeldt, MHarding, IHauptfleisch, JFairbank, J STUDY DESIGN: A comparison between measurement of radiographs using a traditional protractor method and the Oxford Cobbometer, which has the potential to reduce error. OBJECTIVE: To assess measurement variability of Cobb angles using the Oxford Cobbometer and to compare it to that of measurements made using the traditional protractor method. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Studies of the Cobb method have multiple sources of error and subsequent intraobserver variability. Estimates of intraobserver variability are from 2.8 degrees to 10 degrees. METHOD: Fifty-three scoliosis curves were measured by 3 examiners. Two measurement sets were performed using the traditional protractor method and two measurement sets performed using the Oxford Cobbometer. RESULTS: For the protractor method, intraobserver variability was 9.01 degrees (95% confidence interval 7.32-10.88). For the Cobbometer method, the value was 5.77 degrees (95% confidence interval 3.25-7.63). The difference between error for construction and Cobbometer methods was significant (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a lower intraobserver variability for the Oxford Cobbometer compared to the traditional construction method. The Oxford Cobbometer, besides being quick and easy to use, does not require the drawing of lines on films or the use of wide diameter radiographic markers and hence removes some sources of intrinsic error incurred during the traditional method of measuring Cobb angles. |
| spellingShingle | Rosenfeldt, M Harding, I Hauptfleisch, J Fairbank, J A comparison of traditional protractor versus Oxford Cobbometer radiographic measurement: intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. |
| title | A comparison of traditional protractor versus Oxford Cobbometer radiographic measurement: intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. |
| title_full | A comparison of traditional protractor versus Oxford Cobbometer radiographic measurement: intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. |
| title_fullStr | A comparison of traditional protractor versus Oxford Cobbometer radiographic measurement: intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of traditional protractor versus Oxford Cobbometer radiographic measurement: intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. |
| title_short | A comparison of traditional protractor versus Oxford Cobbometer radiographic measurement: intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. |
| title_sort | comparison of traditional protractor versus oxford cobbometer radiographic measurement intraobserver measurement variability for cobb angles |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rosenfeldtm acomparisonoftraditionalprotractorversusoxfordcobbometerradiographicmeasurementintraobservermeasurementvariabilityforcobbangles AT hardingi acomparisonoftraditionalprotractorversusoxfordcobbometerradiographicmeasurementintraobservermeasurementvariabilityforcobbangles AT hauptfleischj acomparisonoftraditionalprotractorversusoxfordcobbometerradiographicmeasurementintraobservermeasurementvariabilityforcobbangles AT fairbankj acomparisonoftraditionalprotractorversusoxfordcobbometerradiographicmeasurementintraobservermeasurementvariabilityforcobbangles AT rosenfeldtm comparisonoftraditionalprotractorversusoxfordcobbometerradiographicmeasurementintraobservermeasurementvariabilityforcobbangles AT hardingi comparisonoftraditionalprotractorversusoxfordcobbometerradiographicmeasurementintraobservermeasurementvariabilityforcobbangles AT hauptfleischj comparisonoftraditionalprotractorversusoxfordcobbometerradiographicmeasurementintraobservermeasurementvariabilityforcobbangles AT fairbankj comparisonoftraditionalprotractorversusoxfordcobbometerradiographicmeasurementintraobservermeasurementvariabilityforcobbangles |