Table 3.
Study | Method | Conclusion |
---|---|---|
Behensky et al9 | King vs Coonrad | Neither the King nor the Coonrad classification method appeared to have sufficient interobserver reliability; thus, the recommendation that, to improve reliability, the structural stigmas of the upper thoracic and lumbar curves be unequivocally described |
Cummings et al10 | King | The King classification method was found to be substantially reproducible but only moderately reliable |
Sheng et al11 | King, PUMC, Lenke | The King and PUMC classification systems were found to have higher inter- and intraobserver reliability than the Lenke classification method; the reliability levels of the three classification systems were all found to be influenced by many factors |
Lenke et al12 | King | The King method for classification of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis did not appear to have sufficient intra- or interobserver reliability among scoliosis surgeons to portray curve types accurately; thus, it was concluded that the King classification method may not help to guide treatment with use of modern spinal fixation methods |
Ogon et al13 | King vs Lenke | The Lenke classification method was found to be more reliable than the older King classification method, but proper classification of high thoracic and lumbar curves was found to be difficult |
Qui et al14 | Lenke vs PUMC | The reliability of both the PUMC and the Lenke classification systems was categorized as good to excellent; the PUMC classification method was found to be relatively simple, with less confusion among inter- and intraobservers, with corresponding surgical fusion guidance and planning |
Richards et al15 | Lenke vs King | The King classification method was found to be better than had recently been reported; the Lenke classification method for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis was found to be less reliable than previously reported when the radiographs were premeasured |
Abbreviations: PUMC, Peking Union Medical College; vs, versus.