Literature DB >> 18552677

Reliability of readings of magnetic resonance imaging features of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Jon D Lurie1, Anna N Tosteson, Tor D Tosteson, Eugene Carragee, John A Carrino, John Carrino, Jay Kaiser, Roberto T Blanco Sequeiros, Amy Rosen Lecomte, Margaret R Grove, Emily A Blood, Loretta H Pearson, James N Weinstein, Richard Herzog.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A reliability assessment of standardized magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretations and measurements.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the intra- and inter-reader reliability of MRI features of lumbar spinal stenosis (SPS), including severity of central, subarticular, and foraminal stenoses, grading of nerve root impingement, and measurements of cross-sectional area of the spinal canal and thecal sac. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MRI is commonly used to assess patients with spinal stenosis. Although a number of studies have evaluated the reliability of certain MRI characteristics, comprehensive evaluation of the reliability of MRI readings in spinal stenosis is lacking.
METHODS: Fifty-eight randomly selected MR images from patients with SPS enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial were evaluated. Qualitative ratings of imaging features were performed according to defined criteria by 4 independent readers (3 radiologists and 1 orthopedic surgeon). A sample of 20 MRIs was reevaluated by each reader at least 1 month later. Weighted kappa statistics were used to characterize intra- and inter-reader reliability for qualitative rating data. Separate quantitative measurements were performed by 2 other radiologists. Intraclass correlation coefficients and summaries of measurement error were used to characterize reliability for quantitative measurements.
RESULTS: Intra-reader reliability was higher than inter-reader reliability for all features. Inter-reader reliability in assessing central stenosis was substantial, with an overall kappa of 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.77). Foraminal stenosis and nerve root impingement showed moderate to substantial agreement with overall kappa of 0.58 (95% CI 0.53-0.63) and 0.51 (95% CI 0.42-0.59), respectively. Subarticular zone stenosis yielded the poorest agreement (overall kappa 0.49; 95% CI 0.42-0.55) and showed marked variability in agreement between reader pairs. Quantitative measures showed inter-reader intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.58 to 0.90. The mean absolute difference between readers in measured thecal sac area was 128 mm (13%).
CONCLUSION: The imaging characteristics of spinal stenosis assessed in this study showed moderate to substantial reliability; future studies should assess whether these findings have prognostic significance in SPS patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18552677      PMCID: PMC2754786          DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181791af3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  14 in total

1.  Variation in the quality of lumbar spine MR images in Washington State.

Authors:  J G Jarvik; W D Robertson; F Wessbecher; K Reger; C Solomon; R Whitten; T Lumley; R A Deyo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the Combined task Forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology.

Authors:  D F Fardon; P C Milette
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Observer variability in assessing lumbar spinal stenosis severity on magnetic resonance imaging and its relation to cross-sectional spinal canal area.

Authors:  Alex C Speciale; Ricardo Pietrobon; Chris W Urban; William J Richardson; Clyde A Helms; Nancy Major; David Enterline; Lloyd Hey; Michael Haglund; Dennis A Turner
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 4.  What can the history and physical examination tell us about low back pain?

Authors:  R A Deyo; J Rainville; D L Kent
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-08-12       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  1989 Volvo Award in clinical sciences. Reproducibility of physical signs in low-back pain.

Authors:  P F McCombe; J C Fairbank; B C Cockersole; P B Pynsent
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation.

Authors:  S D Boden; D O Davis; T S Dina; N J Patronas; S W Wiesel
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Annular tears and disk herniation: prevalence and contrast enhancement on MR images in the absence of low back pain or sciatica.

Authors:  T W Stadnik; R R Lee; H L Coen; E C Neirynck; T S Buisseret; M J Osteaux
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  MR imaging of the lumbar spine: prevalence of intervertebral disk extrusion and sequestration, nerve root compression, end plate abnormalities, and osteoarthritis of the facet joints in asymptomatic volunteers.

Authors:  D Weishaupt; M Zanetti; J Hodler; N Boos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Cross-sectional area of the stenotic lumbar dural tube measured from the transverse views of magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  C Hamanishi; N Matukura; M Fujita; M Tomihara; S Tanaka
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1994-10

10.  Outcomes of decompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis based upon preoperative radiographic severity.

Authors:  Bradley K Weiner; Nilesh M Patel; Matthew A Walker
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2007-03-08       Impact factor: 2.359

View more
  49 in total

1.  Is the sedimentation sign associated with spinal stenosis surgical treatment effect in SPORT?

Authors:  Rachel A Moses; Wenyan Zhao; Lukas P Staub; Markus Melloh; Thomas Barz; Jon D Lurie
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2015-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

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

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

Review 4.  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

5.  Reliability and validity of a new measurement of lumbar foraminal volume using a computed tomography.

Authors:  Frédéric Khiami; Sid-Ali Aziria; Stéphanie Ragot; Hugues Pascal-Moussellard; Jean-Pierre Richer; Michel Scepi; Cyril Brèque; Caroline Hirsch
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2014-06-21       Impact factor: 1.246

6.  Degenerative lumbar spinal canal stenosis: intra- and inter-reader agreement for magnetic resonance imaging parameters.

Authors:  Sebastian Winklhofer; Ulrike Held; Jakob M Burgstaller; Tim Finkenstaedt; Nicolae Bolog; Nils Ulrich; Johann Steurer; Gustav Andreisek; Filippo Del Grande
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Radiographic assessment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: is MRI superior to CT?

Authors:  Khalid Alsaleh; Derek Ho; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; Tanya Charyk Stewart; Kevin Roger Gurr; Christopher Stewart Bailey
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Clinical results and limitations of indirect decompression in spinal stenosis with laterally implanted interbody cages: results from a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Gregory M Malham; Rhiannon M Parker; Ben Goss; Carl M Blecher
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-02-14       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  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

10.  Correlations between sedimentation sign, dural sac cross-sectional area, and clinical symptoms of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Sangbong Ko
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.