Objective: The aim of this study was to examine and interpret the concordance, accuracy, and reliability of photogrammetric protocols available in the literature for evaluating cervical lordosis in an adult population aged 18 to 59 years.
Methods: A systematic search of 6 electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, LILACS, CINAHL, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science) located studies that assessed the reliability and/or concordance and/or accuracy of photogrammetric protocols for evaluating cervical lordosis, compared with radiography. Articles published through April 2016 were selected. Two independent reviewers used a critical appraisal tool (QUADAS and QAREL) to assess the quality of the selected studies.
Results: Two studies were included in the review and had high levels of reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.974-0.98). Only 1 study assessed the concordance between the methods, which was calculated using Pearson's correlation coefficient. To date, the accuracy of photogrammetry has not been investigated thoroughly.
Conclusion: We encountered no study in the literature that investigated the accuracy of photogrammetry in diagnosing hyperlordosis of cervical spine. However, both current studies report high levels of intra- and interrater reliability. To increase the level of evidence of photogrammetry in the evaluation of cervical lordosis, it is necessary to conduct further studies using a larger sample to increase the external validity of the findings.
Keywords: Photogrammetry; Radiography; Reproducibility of Results; Spine.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.