{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033268101761252444, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014187866927592954, 'mean_word_length': 5.618122977346278, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of Manual Versus Computer‐Assisted Radiographic Measurement: Intraobserver Measurement Variability for Cobb Angles

Study Design. A comparison between computer‐assisted measurement using digitized radiographs, which has the potential to reduce error, and manual measurement using standard radiographs. Objective. To assess measurement variability for the Cobb method on digital radiographs and compare it with that of manual measurements on standard radiographs. Background Data. Studies of the Cobb method have demonstrated multiple sources of error leading to significant intraobserver measurement variability. Estimates for the 95% confidence interval for intraobserver variability range from 2.8 degrees to 10 degrees. Methods. Twenty‐four scoliosis radiographs were measured by six examiners. Two measurement sets were done manually ("manual set"), and two measurement sets were done on digitized images using a computer mouse ("computer set"). Results. For the manual set, the 95% confidence interval for intraobserver variability was 3.3 degrees (range, 2.5‐4.5 degrees). For the computer set, the value was 2.6 degrees (range, 2.3‐3.3 degrees). This difference in 95% confidence intervals between the manual and computer sets was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Conclusions. The results of this study demonstrate that intraobserver variability for manual and computer Cobb angle measurements yield a 95% confidence interval of approximately 3 degrees, with the computer having a slightly lower variability. The computer technique removes sources of intrinsic error, e.g., the variability introduced by using different manual protractors, the inaccuracy of standard protractors, and the use of wide‐diameter radiographic markers. Identical digital images can be shared electronically between centers, without having to duplicate and mail films. Multicenter studies in which different examiners will be measuring Cobb angles may consider using the computer as a measuring device to reduce intrinsic measurement errors.