STUDY DESIGN: An inter- and intra-observer reliability study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the inter- and intra-observer reliabilities of the new SRS-Schwab system for classifying adult spinal deformity (ASD) using nonpremarked cases. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Schwab et al reported excellent inter- and intra-observer reliability and interobserver agreement for classification based on curve type and 3 modifiers. METHODS: A total of 102 patients with ASD were included in this study, which was conducted from February 2009 to January 2012. Long-cassette standing posterior-anterior and lateral radiographs of the spine and the pelvis were obtained from patients with ASD in the fist-on-clavicle position. All 102 cases were classified according to the new SRS-Schwab classification by 4 observers. After a 2-week interval, the same classification was independently repeated by each observer with the cases in a different randomly assigned order. The Fless κ coefficient was calculated to test the inter- and intra-observer reliabilities of the new SRS-Schwab classification. RESULTS: With the new SRS-Schwab classification system, 12 patients were classified as having a type T curve, 30 cases as having a type L, 45 cases as having a type D, and 15 cases as having a type S. For overall classification, the mean κ value was 0.73 for interobserver reliability and 0.83 for intraobserver reliability. Disagreements occurred most often when differentiating type T curves from type L curves and when determining the pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis modifier. CONCLUSION: With the nonpremarked cases, this new SRS-Schwab system for patients with ASD could achieve good to excellent intra- and inter-observer reliability, but the definition of thoracic or lumbar curves was still predisposed to confusion. Overall, the SRS-Schwab system is a simple and clear classification system with incorporated spinopelvic parameters, which significantly increase its value for practical usage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: