Literature DB >> 12695220

Qualitative assessment of cervical spinal stenosis: observer variability on CT and MR images.

Jeffrey S Stafira1, Jagadeesh R Sonnad, William T C Yuh, David R Huard, Robin E Acker, Dan L Nguyen, Joan E Maley, Faridali G Ramji, Wen-Bin Li, Christopher M Loftus.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Several studies have been undertaken to validate quantitative methods of evaluating cervical spinal stenosis. This study was performed to assess the degree of interobserver and intraobserver agreement in the qualitative evaluation of cervical spinal stenosis on CT myelograms and MR images.
METHODS: Cervical MR images and CT myelograms of 38 patients were evaluated retrospectively. Six neuroradiologists with various backgrounds and training independently assessed the level, degree, and cause of stenosis on either MR images or CT myelograms. Unknown to the evaluators, 16 of the patients were evaluated twice to determine intraobserver variability.
RESULTS: Interobserver agreement among the radiologists with regard to level, degree, and cause of stenosis on CT myelograms showed kappa values of 0.50, 0.26, and 0.32, respectively, and on MR images showed kappa values of 0.60, 0.31, and 0.22, respectively. Intraobserver agreement with regard to level, degree, and cause of stenosis on CT myelograms showed mean kappa values of 0.69, 0.41, and 0.55, respectively, and on MR images showed mean kappa values of 0.80, 0.37, and 0.40, respectively.
CONCLUSION: MR imaging and CT myelographic evaluation of cervical spinal stenosis by using current qualitative methods results in significant variation in image interpretation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12695220      PMCID: PMC8148670     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol        ISSN: 0195-6108            Impact factor:   3.825


  16 in total

1.  Reliability in grading the severity of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  R Drew; M Bhandari; A V Kulkarni; D Louw; K Reddy; B Dunlop
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  2000-06

2.  Comparison of computerized tomography parameters of the cervical spine in normal control subjects and spinal cord-injured patients.

Authors:  P Matsuura; R L Waters; R H Adkins; S Rothman; N Gurbani; I Sie
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Comparison of myelography, CT myelography and magnetic resonance imaging in cervical spondylosis and disk herniation. Pre- and postoperative findings.

Authors:  E M Larsson; S Holtås; S Cronqvist; L Brandt
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  1989 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.990

4.  Quantitative analysis of the cervical spinal canal by computed tomography.

Authors:  J H Stanley; S I Schabel; G D Frey; G D Hungerford
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.804

5.  Morphometry of the cervical spinal cord and its relation to pathology in cases with compression myelopathy.

Authors:  K Fujiwara; K Yonenobu; K Hiroshima; S Ebara; K Yamashita; K Ono
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Pain in the back and legs caused by cervical spinal cord compression.

Authors:  T W Langfitt; F A Elliott
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1967-05-01       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Morphologic analysis of the cervical spinal cord, dural tube, and spinal canal by magnetic resonance imaging in normal adults and patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Y Okada; T Ikata; S Katoh; H Yamada
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Magnetic resonance imaging study on the results of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy.

Authors:  Y Okada; T Ikata; H Yamada; R Sakamoto; S Katoh
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 10.  Epidemiology, physical examination, and neurodiagnostics.

Authors:  J Dvorák
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  10 in total

1.  MRI of the cervical spine with neck extension: is it useful?

Authors:  R J V Bartlett; C A Rowland Hill; A S Rigby; S Chandrasekaran; H Narayanamurthy
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Extension MRI is clinically useful in cervical myelopathy.

Authors:  R J V Bartlett; A S Rigby; J Joseph; A Raman; A Kunnacherry; C A Rowland Hill
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 2.804

3.  Is spinal stenosis assessment dependent on slice orientation? A magnetic resonance imaging study.

Authors:  Lucy Henderson; Gerit Kulik; Delphine Richarme; Nicolas Theumann; Constantin Schizas
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Major Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes of Total Spine MRI Performed in the Emergency Department at a Major Academic Medical Center.

Authors:  C W C Huang; A Ali; Y-M Chang; A F Bezuidenhout; D B Hackney; J A Edlow; R A Bhadelia
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Measurement of volume-occupying rate of cervical spinal canal and its role in cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Fulong Dong; Cailiang Shen; Shu Jiang; Renjie Zhang; Peiwen Song; Yongqiang Yu; Shiyu Wang; Xiaohu Li; Gang Zhao; Changhai Ding
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-01-06       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  A systematic review of validated classification systems for cervical and lumbar spinal foraminal stenosis based on magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  John Hutchins; Hanna Hebelka; Kerstin Lagerstrand; Helena Brisby
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 2.721

7.  Comparison of noncontrast computed tomography and high-field magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of Great Danes with cervical spondylomyelopathy.

Authors:  Paula Martin-Vaquero; Ronaldo C da Costa; Wm Tod Drost
Journal:  Vet Radiol Ultrasound       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 1.363

8.  Comparison of two MR grading systems for correlation between grade of cervical neural foraminal stenosis and clinical manifestations.

Authors:  Kyu H Lee; Hee J Park; So Y Lee; Eun C Chung; Myung H Rho; Hyunchul Shin; Young J Kwon
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-03-23       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Development of a clinical diagnosis support tool to identify patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Shinichi Konno; Yasuaki Hayashino; Shunichi Fukuhara; Shinichi Kikuchi; Kiyoshi Kaneda; Atsushi Seichi; Kazuhiro Chiba; Kazuhiko Satomi; Kensei Nagata; Shinya Kawai
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-06-05       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Relationship Between Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings and Clinical Symptoms in Patients with Suspected Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis: a Case-control Study.

Authors:  Hadi Majidi; Misagh Shafizad; Fatemeh Niksolat; Mani Mahmudi; Saeed Ehteshami; Motahare Poorali; Zahra Mardanshahi
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2019-12
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.