['Several imaging-based scoring systems have been used as outcome measures in assessing the severity of cystic fibrosis (CF) lung disease. It has been shown that chest radiography performs equally to computed tomography (CT). There is the opinion that of the two most commonly used chest radiograph (CXR) systems, the Brasfield system is less sensitive and reliable than the Wisconsin system.', 'This report assesses the reproducibility and reliability of the two systems.', 'Thirty patients with CXRs during a 5-year period were randomly selected. One hundred eighty-two studies had data for all CXRs and pulmonary function tests (PFTs), Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV-1) and Forced Vital Capacity (FVC). PFT values closest to the date of each CXR were recorded. Four radiologists scored each image twice by both the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems. Intra- and inter-rater reliability, correlation with PFTs and direct correlation of the two systems were calculated.', 'Intra-rater agreement: r\u2009=\u20090.86-0.99 Brasfield, r\u2009=\u20090.78-0.96 Wisconsin. Inter-rater agreement: 0.76-0.90 Brasfield, r\u2009=\u20090.74-0.97 Wisconsin. Brasfield vs. FEV-1: r\u2009=\u20090.55, vs. FVC r\u2009=\u20090.61. Wisconsin vs. FEV-1: r\u2009=\u20090.57, vs. FVC r\u2009=\u20090.66. Correlation of the two systems: r\u2009=\u20090.86 (all P\u2009<\u20090.001).'] Do brasfield and Wisconsin scoring systems have equal value as outcome assessment tools of cystic fibrosis lung disease?