Reprodutibilidade intra e interobservadores no ângulo de cobb em indivíduos escolióticos

Autores

  • Fabiana Flores Sperandio Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina; Departamento de Fisioterapia
  • Graziela Morgana Silva Tavares Universidade Federal do Pampa; Departamento de Fisioterapia
  • Gilmar Moraes Santos Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina; Departamento de Fisioterapia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.19992

Palavras-chave:

escoliose, ângulo de Cobb, reprodutibilidade inter e intra-observador

Resumo

o objetivo deste estudo é analisar a variabilidade intra e interobservador do método de Cobb em indivíduos escolióticos. Foram avaliadas trinta e quatro radiografias de sujeitos com escoliose para mensuração do ângulo de Cobb. A avaliação intraobservador foi realizada por um avaliador, enquanto a avaliação interobservador foi realizada por três avaliadores. Foram controlados possíveis erros intrínsecos e extrínsecos de mensuração, mas não houve a pré-seleção das vértebras que caracterizam a escoliose. A concordância intra e interobservador foi avaliada pelo coeficiente de correlação de Pearson (p < 0,05). Não houve diferenças significativas de julgamento na condição intra e interobservadores. A magnitude dos coeficientes de correlação oscilou de bom até excelente nos níveis torácico e tóraco-lombar. Na coluna lombar não houve correlação em ambas as condições.

Referências

Nissinen MJ, Heliovaara MM, Seitsamo JT, Kononen MH, Hurmerinta KA, Poussa MS. Development of trunk asymmetry in a cohort of children ages 11 to 22 years. Spine. 2000;25(5): 570-574.

Hawes MC. The use of exercises in the treatment of scoliosis: An evidence-based critical review of the literature. Pediatr Rehabil. 2003;6(3-4): 171-182.

Tosato JP, Caria PHF. Avaliação da atividade muscular na escoliose. Rev Bras Crescimento Desenvol Hum. 2009; 19(1): 98-102.

Forlin E, Vieira LFT. Avaliação da acurácia da determinação da idade óssea e de sua aplicação na projeção da discrepância final do comprimento dos membros inferiores. Rev Bras Ortop. 1994;29:597-600.

Bradford DS, Lostein JE, Moe JH, Ogilvie JW, Winter RB. Escoliose e outras deformidades da coluna “O livro de Moe”. São Paulo: Santos; 1994.

Kleinerman RA. Cancer risks following diagnostic and therapeutic radiation exposure in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2006;36:121-125.

Doody M, Lonstein JE, Stovall M, Hacker DG, Luckyanov N, Land CE. Breast cancer mortality after diagnostic radiography: findings from the U.S. Scoliosis Cohort Study. Spine. 2000; 25(16): 2052-2063.

Mior SA, Kopansky-Giles DR, Crowther E, Wright JG. A comparison of radiographic and eletrogoniometric angles in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 1996; 21(13):1549-1555.

Dao TV, Labelle H, Le Blanc R. Variabilité intra-observateur de la mesurede la posture à láide dún numérisateur tridimensionnel. Ann Chir. 1997; 51(8):848-853.

Ovadia D, Bar-On E, Fragnière B, RigoM, Dickman D, Leitner J, et al. Radiation-free quantitative assessment of scoliosis: a multi center prospective study. Eur SpineJ. 2007; 16(1): 97- 105.

Pruijs JEH, Keessen W, Van der Meer R, van Wieringen JC, Hageman MAPE. School screening for Scoliosis: Methodologic Considerations - Part 1:external measurements. Spine. 1992; 17:431-435.

Carman DL, Browne RH, Birch JG. Measurement of scoliosis and kyphosis radiographs. Intra observer and inter observer variation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990; 72(3):328-33.

Morrissy RT, Goldsmith GS, Hall EC, KehlD, Cowie GH. Measurement of the Cobb angle on radiographs of patients who have scoliosis – Evaluation of intrinsic error. J Bone Joint Surg. 1990; 72-A: 320-327.

Shea KG, Stevens PM, Nelson M, Smith JT, Masters K S, Yandow SA. Comparisonof manual versus computer-assisted radiographic measurement. Intra observer measurement variability for Cobb angles. Spine. 1998; 23: 551-555.

Sevastikoglou JA, Bergquist E. Evaluationof the reliability of radiological methods for registration of scoliosis. Acta Orthop Scand. 1969; 40(5): 608-613.

Gross C, Gross M, Kuschner S. Erroranalysis of scoliosis curvature measurement: Bull Hosp J t Dis OrthopInst. 1983; 43(2): 171-177.

Beekmann CE, Hall V. Variability of scoliosis measurement from spinal roentgenograms. Phys Ther. 1979; 59:764-765.

Modi HN, Chen T, Suh SW, Mehta S, Srinivasalu S, Yang J, et al. Observer reliability between juvenile and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in measurement of stable Cobb ́s and angle. Eur Spine J.2009; 18: 52-58.

Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB. Delineando a pesquisa clínica – Uma abordagem epidemiológica. Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2008.

Leroux MA, Zabjek K, Simard G, BadeauxJ, Coillard C, Rivard CH. A noninvasive anthropometric technique for measurement kyphosis and lordosis: an application for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine.2000; 25 (13): 1689-94.

Vedantam R, Lenke LG, Kenney JA, Bridwell KH. Comparison of standing sagital spinal alignment in asymptomatic adolescents and adults. Spine. 1998; 23(2): 211-5.

Dang NR, Moreau MJ, Hill DL, Mahood JK, Raso J. Intra-observer Reproducibility and Inter observer Reliability of the Radiographic Parameters in the Spinal Deformity Study Group’s AIS Radiographic Measurement Manual. Spine. 2005; 30(9):1064–1069.

Delisa JA. Tratado de medicina de reabilitação. São Paulo: Manole; 2002.

Bisquera R, Sarrriera JC, Martinez F. Introdução a estatística – Enfoque informático com o pacote estatístico SPSS. Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2004.

Lonstein JE, Carlson JM. The prediction of curve progression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during growth. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:1061-1071.

Bunnell WP, Delaware W. An objective criterion for scoliosis screening. J Bone Joint Surg. 1984; 66-A: 1381-1387.

Gram MC, Hasan Z. The spinal curve instanding and sitting posture in children with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine.1999;24(2): 169-177.

Birchall D, Hughes D, Hindle J, RobinsonL, Williamson JB. Measurement of vertebral rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging. Spine. 1997;22(20): 2403-2407.

Ferreira DMA, Suguikawa TR, Pachioni CAS, Fregonesi CEPT, Camargo, MR. Rastreamento escolar da escoliose: medida para o diagnóstico precoce. Rev Bras Crescimento Desenvolv Hum. 2009;19(3):357-368.

Downloads

Publicado

2011-04-01

Edição

v. 21 n. 1 (2011)

Seção

Pesquisa Original

Licença

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis