FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2023651880> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2023651880 endingPage "E842" @default.
• W2023651880 startingPage "E836" @default.
• W2023651880 abstract "In Brief Study Design. Comparison of 2 radiographic scoliosis classification systems by multiple surgeons. Objective. Compare the reliability of Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) and Lenke scoliosis classification systems and analyze their differences. Summary of Background Data. The PUMC classification is a newly reported system based on radiographic measurements with recent popularity, while the Lenke classification is widely accepted worldwide in surgical design. Both these classification systems have their own individual characteristics, hence it is necessary to compare their reliability. Methods. Five scoliosis surgeons independently evaluated and classified presurgical radiographs of 62 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients based on the PUMC and Lenke classification systems on 2 separate occasions. Radiographs were cleaned before each evaluation. Inter- and intraobserver reliabilities were quantified using Kappa statistics. Data were compared using χ2 analysis. Results. The PUMC classification’s inter- and intraobserver percentage of agreement averaged to 91.0% (Kappa coefficient 0.896) and 90.2% (Kappa coefficient 0.892), respectively. While those of the Lenke curve type classification were 86.5% (Kappa coefficient 0.808) and 87.4% (Kappa coefficient 0.826). The PUMC classification from 10 individual measurements had 17 cases (27.4%) of disagreements, while in the Lenke curve type classification, 24 cases (38.7%) had disagreements. PUMC classification normally has discrepancies between type IIb, IIc, and IId, while Lenke classification has discrepancies in curve types 1 and 2. Out of 17 inconsistent PUMC curve type cases, 7 did not affect surgical fusion levels, while in the Lenke’s only 2 out of 24 cases with discrepancies did not affect fusion range selection, with an obvious statistical difference. Conclusion. The reliability of both PUMC classification and Lenke curve type classification were categorized as good-to-excellent. PUMC classification is relatively simple, with less confusion among inter- and intraobservers, with corresponding surgical fusion guidance and planning. The mismatch of curve classification had less influence on PUMC’s fusion range selection than Lenke’s. Two radiographic scoliosis curve classification systems; Peking Union Medical College and Lenke were compared by multiple surgeons. Their reliabilities were evaluated and the differences and influence on surgical planning were analyzed." @default.
• W2023651880 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5002130552 @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5012189612 @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5040174397 @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5045460876 @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5051062597 @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5055214066 @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5055837931 @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5061464627 @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5067464528 @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5068080767 @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5071615220 @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5079442304 @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5082631944 @default.
• W2023651880 creator A5090818171 @default.
• W2023651880 date "2008-10-01" @default.
• W2023651880 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2023651880 title "Comparison of Reliability Between the PUMC and Lenke Classification Systems for Classifying Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis" @default.
• W2023651880 cites W152404302 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W1963525526 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W1966680861 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W1968623643 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W1969883024 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W1982409555 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W2029079835 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W2030554163 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W2031105195 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W2034816654 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W2040898254 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W2049835852 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W2063951888 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W2068179957 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W2093599286 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W2103796684 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W2123101950 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W2139774746 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W2160330988 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W4246223718 @default.
• W2023651880 cites W4377204015 @default.
• W2023651880 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e318187bb10" @default.
• W2023651880 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18923307" @default.
• W2023651880 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2023651880 type Work @default.
• W2023651880 sameAs 2023651880 @default.
• W2023651880 citedByCount "21" @default.
• W2023651880 countsByYear W20236518802014 @default.
• W2023651880 countsByYear W20236518802015 @default.
• W2023651880 countsByYear W20236518802017 @default.
• W2023651880 countsByYear W20236518802018 @default.
• W2023651880 countsByYear W20236518802019 @default.
• W2023651880 countsByYear W20236518802021 @default.
• W2023651880 countsByYear W20236518802022 @default.
• W2023651880 countsByYear W20236518802023 @default.
• W2023651880 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5002130552 @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5012189612 @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5040174397 @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5045460876 @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5051062597 @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5055214066 @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5055837931 @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5061464627 @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5067464528 @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5068080767 @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5071615220 @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5079442304 @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5082631944 @default.
• W2023651880 hasAuthorship W2023651880A5090818171 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C163258240 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C163864269 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C2778724333 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C2780955175 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C2993634128 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C36454342 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C43214815 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConceptScore W2023651880C105795698 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConceptScore W2023651880C121332964 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConceptScore W2023651880C126838900 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConceptScore W2023651880C141071460 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConceptScore W2023651880C163258240 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConceptScore W2023651880C163864269 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConceptScore W2023651880C2524010 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConceptScore W2023651880C2778724333 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConceptScore W2023651880C2780955175 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConceptScore W2023651880C29694066 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConceptScore W2023651880C2989005 @default.
• W2023651880 hasConceptScore W2023651880C2993634128 @default.

• next