Ali Akil
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Ali Akil has a total of 16 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Hussein Akil
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
3 shared publications - Elie Najjar
Centre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
2 shared publications - Nasir Ali Quraishi
Centre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
2 shared publications - Alexa Chedid
Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine, Lebanese American University, Byblos, Lebanon
1 shared publication - Chinedu Egu
South Tyneside and Sunderland Trust, Sunderland, UK
1 shared publication - Gil Kerbaj
Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 10 September 2026
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Current Orthopaedic Practice
Delayed holospinal epidural abscess two years after lumbar decompression and instrumented fusion: A rare case report and literature review
Was not provided for this article.
- 10 September 2026
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Current Orthopaedic Practice
Delayed holospinal epidural abscess two years after lumbar decompression and instrumented fusion: A rare case report and literature review
Was not provided for this article.
- 21 November 2025
- Published by Springer Nature in European Spine Journal
- Vol. 35 (6) , 3008-3017
The Lenke paradox: substantial agreement or methodological mirage?
Study Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective To evaluate inter- and intra-observer reliability of the Lenke classification for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and identify methodological factors influencing agreement. Summary of Background Data The Lenke system is widely used in AIS surgical planning. While initial reports showed excellent reproducibility, subsequent studies have yielded inconsistent results, particularly for lumbar and sagittal modifiers. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, five databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched to August 2025. Data on observer characteristics, imaging protocols, measurement methods, and statistical indices (κ, ICC) were extracted. Study quality was assessed with QAREL. Descriptive synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis were performed. Results Eleven studies (528 radiographs) met inclusion. Inter-observer reliability averaged κ=0.76 (range 0.50–0.96); lumbar κ=0.75 (0.53–0.92); sagittal κ=0.79 (0.41–1.0). Pooled analysis of two studies with confidence intervals yielded κ=0.69 (95% CI 0.56–0.82; I²=21%). Intra-observer reliability was higher (κ≈0.82). Reliability improved with pre-measured radiographs, experienced observers, computer assistance, and short repeat intervals; it was lower with non-premeasured films, mixed cohorts, and longer intervals. Lumbar modifiers were relatively robust, whereas sagittal reproducibility was most vulnerable to methodological bias. One study illustrated the κ paradox, with high agreement but κ=0.41 due to skewed distribution. Conclusions The Lenke classification is reliable under controlled conditions but less consistent in everyday practice. Reported κ values should be interpreted within their methodological context. Standardised protocols, transparent reporting, and digital tools may improve reproducibility.
- 21 November 2025
- Published by Springer Nature in European Spine Journal
- Vol. 35 (6) , 3008-3017
The Lenke paradox: substantial agreement or methodological mirage?
Study Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective To evaluate inter- and intra-observer reliability of the Lenke classification for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and identify methodological factors influencing agreement. Summary of Background Data The Lenke system is widely used in AIS surgical planning. While initial reports showed excellent reproducibility, subsequent studies have yielded inconsistent results, particularly for lumbar and sagittal modifiers. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, five databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched to August 2025. Data on observer characteristics, imaging protocols, measurement methods, and statistical indices (κ, ICC) were extracted. Study quality was assessed with QAREL. Descriptive synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis were performed. Results Eleven studies (528 radiographs) met inclusion. Inter-observer reliability averaged κ=0.76 (range 0.50–0.96); lumbar κ=0.75 (0.53–0.92); sagittal κ=0.79 (0.41–1.0). Pooled analysis of two studies with confidence intervals yielded κ=0.69 (95% CI 0.56–0.82; I²=21%). Intra-observer reliability was higher (κ≈0.82). Reliability improved with pre-measured radiographs, experienced observers, computer assistance, and short repeat intervals; it was lower with non-premeasured films, mixed cohorts, and longer intervals. Lumbar modifiers were relatively robust, whereas sagittal reproducibility was most vulnerable to methodological bias. One study illustrated the κ paradox, with high agreement but κ=0.41 due to skewed distribution. Conclusions The Lenke classification is reliable under controlled conditions but less consistent in everyday practice. Reported κ values should be interpreted within their methodological context. Standardised protocols, transparent reporting, and digital tools may improve reproducibility.