UNLABELLED: Two radiologists evaluated images of the spine from computed tomography (CT) scans on two occasions to diagnose vertebral fracture in 100 individuals. Agreement was fair to good for mild fractures, and agreement was good to excellent for more severe fractures. CT scout views are useful to assess vertebral fracture. INTRODUCTION: We investigated inter-reader agreement between two radiologists and intra-reader agreement between duplicate readings for each radiologist, in assessment of vertebral fracture using a semi-quantitative method from lateral scout views obtained by CT. METHODS: Participants included 50 women and 50 men (age 50-87 years, mean 70 years) in the Framingham Study. T4-L4 vertebrae were assessed independently by two radiologists on two occasions using a semi-quantitative scale as normal, mild, moderate, or severe fracture. RESULTS: Vertebra-specific prevalence of grade ≥ 1 (mild) fracture ranged from 3% to 5%. We found fair (κ = 56-59%) inter-reader agreement for grade ≥ 1 vertebral fractures and good (κ = 68-72%) inter-reader agreement for grade ≥ 2 fractures. Intra-reader agreement for grade ≥ 1 vertebral fracture was fair (κ = 55%) for one reader and excellent for another reader (κ = 77%), whereas intra-reader agreement for grade ≥ 2 vertebral fracture was excellent for both readers (κ = 76% and 98%). Thoracic vertebrae were more difficult to evaluate than the lumbar region, and agreement was lowest (inter-reader κ = 43%) for fracture at the upper (T4-T9) thoracic levels and highest (inter-reader κ = 76-78%) for the lumbar spine (L1-L4). CONCLUSIONS: Based on a semi-quantitative method to classify vertebral fractures using CT scout views, agreement within and between readers was fair to good, with the greatest source of variation occurring for fractures of mild severity and for the upper thoracic region. Agreement was good to excellent for fractures of at least moderate severity. Lateral CT scout views can be useful in clinical research settings to assess vertebral fracture.
UNLABELLED: Two radiologists evaluated images of the spine from computed tomography (CT) scans on two occasions to diagnose vertebral fracture in 100 individuals. Agreement was fair to good for mild fractures, and agreement was good to excellent for more severe fractures. CT scout views are useful to assess vertebral fracture. INTRODUCTION: We investigated inter-reader agreement between two radiologists and intra-reader agreement between duplicate readings for each radiologist, in assessment of vertebral fracture using a semi-quantitative method from lateral scout views obtained by CT. METHODS:Participants included 50 women and 50 men (age 50-87 years, mean 70 years) in the Framingham Study. T4-L4 vertebrae were assessed independently by two radiologists on two occasions using a semi-quantitative scale as normal, mild, moderate, or severe fracture. RESULTS: Vertebra-specific prevalence of grade ≥ 1 (mild) fracture ranged from 3% to 5%. We found fair (κ = 56-59%) inter-reader agreement for grade ≥ 1 vertebral fractures and good (κ = 68-72%) inter-reader agreement for grade ≥ 2 fractures. Intra-reader agreement for grade ≥ 1 vertebral fracture was fair (κ = 55%) for one reader and excellent for another reader (κ = 77%), whereas intra-reader agreement for grade ≥ 2 vertebral fracture was excellent for both readers (κ = 76% and 98%). Thoracic vertebrae were more difficult to evaluate than the lumbar region, and agreement was lowest (inter-reader κ = 43%) for fracture at the upper (T4-T9) thoracic levels and highest (inter-reader κ = 76-78%) for the lumbar spine (L1-L4). CONCLUSIONS: Based on a semi-quantitative method to classify vertebral fractures using CT scout views, agreement within and between readers was fair to good, with the greatest source of variation occurring for fractures of mild severity and for the upper thoracic region. Agreement was good to excellent for fractures of at least moderate severity. Lateral CT scout views can be useful in clinical research settings to assess vertebral fracture.
Authors: Greta Lee Splansky; Diane Corey; Qiong Yang; Larry D Atwood; L Adrienne Cupples; Emelia J Benjamin; Ralph B D'Agostino; Caroline S Fox; Martin G Larson; Joanne M Murabito; Christopher J O'Donnell; Ramachandran S Vasan; Philip A Wolf; Daniel Levy Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-03-19 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Jane A Cauley; Marc C Hochberg; Li-Yung Lui; Lisa Palermo; Kristine E Ensrud; Teresa A Hillier; Michael C Nevitt; Steven R Cummings Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-12-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: T Fuerst; C Wu; H K Genant; G von Ingersleben; Y Chen; C Johnston; M J Econs; N Binkley; T J Vokes; G Crans; B H Mitlak Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2008-12-13 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Elizabeth J Samelson; Blaine A Christiansen; Serkalem Demissie; Kerry E Broe; Qiong Louie-Gao; L Adrienne Cupples; Benjamin J Roberts; Rajaram Manoharam; John D'Agostino; Thomas Lang; Douglas P Kiel; Mary L Bouxsein Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Y M Kim; S Demissie; H K Genant; X Cheng; W Yu; E J Samelson; D P Kiel; M L Bouxsein Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-09-17 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Ling Oei; Fernando Rivadeneira; Felisia Ly; Stephan J Breda; M Carola Zillikens; Albert Hofman; André G Uitterlinden; Gabriel P Krestin; Edwin H G Oei Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sara Guerri; Daniele Mercatelli; Maria Pilar Aparisi Gómez; Alessandro Napoli; Giuseppe Battista; Giuseppe Guglielmi; Alberto Bazzocchi Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2018-02
Authors: Michelle S Yau; Serkalem Demissie; Yanhua Zhou; Dennis E Anderson; Amanda L Lorbergs; Douglas P Kiel; Brett T Allaire; Laiji Yang; L Adrienne Cupples; Thomas G Travison; Mary L Bouxsein; David Karasik; Elizabeth J Samelson Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: A Bazzocchi; F Fuzzi; G Garzillo; D Diano; E Rimondi; B Merlino; A Moio; U Albisinni; G Battista; G Guglielmi Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 3.039