Literature DB >> 15615992

Observer variation in MRI evaluation of patients suspected of lumbar disk herniation.

Jeroen C van Rijn1, Nina Klemetsö, Johannes B Reitsma, Charles B L M Majoie, Frans J Hulsmans, Wilco C Peul, Jan Stam, Patrick M Bossuyt, Gerard J den Heeten.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess observer variation in MRI evaluation in patients suspected of lumbar disk herniation. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two experienced neuroradiologists independently evaluated 59 consecutive patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. Per patient, three levels (L3-L4 through L5-S1) and the accompanying roots were evaluated on both sides. For each segment, the presence of a bulging disk or a herniation and compression of the root was reported. Images were interpreted twice: once before and once after disclosure of clinical information. Interobserver agreement was expressed as unweighted kappa values.
RESULTS: Without clinical information, interobserver agreement for the presence of herniation or bulging disk was moderate (full agreement, 84%; kappa = 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.72). Of a total of 352 segments evaluated, there was disagreement on 58 segments (17%): bulging disk versus no defect in 26 (7.4%), bulging disk versus herniation in five (1.4%), and hernia versus no defect in 27 (7.7%). With clinical information, twice as many bulging disks were reported but no new herniations were detected. Agreement slightly decreased, but not significantly (full agreement, 77%; kappa = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.49-0.69; p = 0.12).
CONCLUSION: On average, more than 50% of interobserver variation in MRI evaluation of patients with lumbosacral radicular pain is caused by disagreement on bulging disks. Knowledge of clinical information does not influence the detection of herniations but lowers the threshold for reporting bulging disks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15615992     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.1.01840299

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  18 in total

1.  Evaluation of lumber nerve root compression using thin-slice thickness coronal magnetic resonance imaging: three-dimensional fat-suppressed multi-shot balanced non-steady-state free precession versus three-dimensional T1-weighted spoiled gradient-recalled echo.

Authors:  Keizo Tanitame; Nobuko Tanitame; Chihiro Tani; Masaki Ishikawa; Miyuki Takasu; Shuji Date; Keiko Otani; Kazuo Awai
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2011-09-29       Impact factor: 2.374

2.  Influence of nomenclature in the interpretation of lumbar disk contour on MR imaging: a comparison of the agreement using the combined task force and the nordic nomenclatures.

Authors:  E Arana; F M Kovacs; A Royuela; A Estremera; H Sarasíbar; G Amengual; I Galarraga; C Martínez; A Muriel; V Abraira; J Zamora; C Campillo
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-04-14       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 3.  Consensus conference on core radiological parameters to describe lumbar stenosis - an initiative for structured reporting.

Authors:  Gustav Andreisek; Richard A Deyo; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Francois Porchet; Sebastian F X Winklhofer; Johann Steurer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Potential of magnetic resonance imaging findings to refine case definition for mechanical low back pain in epidemiological studies: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alison Endean; Keith T Palmer; David Coggon
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  MRI of the transverse and alar ligaments in rheumatoid arthritis: feasibility and relations to atlantoaxial subluxation and disease activity.

Authors:  Nils Vetti; Rikke Alsing; Jostein Kråkenes; Jarle Rørvik; Nils Erik Gilhus; Johan Gorgas Brun; Ansgar Espeland
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 6.  How should we grade lumbar disc herniation and nerve root compression? A systematic review.

Authors:  Yiping Li; Vance Fredrickson; Daniel K Resnick
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Magnetic resonance imaging interpretation in patients with symptomatic lumbar spine disc herniations: comparison of clinician and radiologist readings.

Authors:  Jon D Lurie; David M Doman; Kevin F Spratt; Anna N A Tosteson; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Signal Intensity of Lumbar Disc Herniations: Correlation With Age of Herniation for Extrusion, Protrusion, and Sequestration.

Authors:  Markus Rafael Konieczny; Jeremia Reinhardt; Max Prost; Christoph Schleich; Rüdiger Krauspe
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-02-29

9.  Are two readers more reliable than one? A study of upper neck ligament scoring on magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Ansgar Espeland; Nils Vetti; Jostein Kråkenes
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 1.930

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging interpretation in patients with sciatica who are potential candidates for lumbar disc surgery.

Authors:  Abdelilah El Barzouhi; Carmen L A M Vleggeert-Lankamp; Geert J Lycklama À Nijeholt; Bas F Van der Kallen; Wilbert B van den Hout; Annemieke J H Verwoerd; Bart W Koes; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.