UNLABELLED: Semi-automatic morphometry is highly reproducible and not time intensive; however, no study has evaluated agreement between semi-automated morphometric methods and the Genant semi-quantitative method performed as a rule by radiologists. Our study shows substantial agreement between both methods; however, semi-automatic morphometry upgrades mild deformities and overestimates the prevalence of fractures. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between radiologists using the Genant semi-quantitative (SQ) method and semi-automated morphometry in the diagnosis of vertebral fractures in post-menopausal women. METHODS: Cross-sectional study was conducted in 2006-2007 in an age-stratified population-based sample of 824 post-menopausal women over the age of 50. From this population two sets of 95 and 50 X-ray were randomly extracted to test inter-rater agreement and agreement between SQ and semi-automated morphometry, and vertebral fractures were classified according to both methods. The Genant method was used to homogenise the diagnosis of fractures. Agreement was evaluated with weighted kappa. We evaluated each vertebral body independently and also the whole vertebral column (T4-L4) classifying women into the worst grade of fracture. For the qualitative interpretation of the agreement, we used the criteria described by Landis and Koch (Biometrics 33:159-174, 1977). RESULTS: The radiologists' agreement was 98.4% (Kappa, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.42-0.89). Agreement between semi-automated morphometry and SQ reached 97.6% and Kappa was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.66-0.94). In the whole evaluation of the spine semi-automated morphometry overestimates, the prevalence of fractures compared with the radiologists were 15.8% of women with fractures and 7.4% of women with moderate-severe fractures by semi-automated morphometry vs. 8.4% and 3.2% by the SQ method. The negative predictive value for MorphoXpress was 99% while the positive was 40%. CONCLUSIONS: Semi-automated morphometry shows high reliability and a substantial agreement with the SQ approach but overestimates the prevalence of fractures. Its role in routine clinical practice is limited because positive results should be reassessed by qualitative or semi-quantitative methods.
UNLABELLED: Semi-automatic morphometry is highly reproducible and not time intensive; however, no study has evaluated agreement between semi-automated morphometric methods and the Genant semi-quantitative method performed as a rule by radiologists. Our study shows substantial agreement between both methods; however, semi-automatic morphometry upgrades mild deformities and overestimates the prevalence of fractures. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between radiologists using the Genant semi-quantitative (SQ) method and semi-automated morphometry in the diagnosis of vertebral fractures in post-menopausal women. METHODS: Cross-sectional study was conducted in 2006-2007 in an age-stratified population-based sample of 824 post-menopausal women over the age of 50. From this population two sets of 95 and 50 X-ray were randomly extracted to test inter-rater agreement and agreement between SQ and semi-automated morphometry, and vertebral fractures were classified according to both methods. The Genant method was used to homogenise the diagnosis of fractures. Agreement was evaluated with weighted kappa. We evaluated each vertebral body independently and also the whole vertebral column (T4-L4) classifying women into the worst grade of fracture. For the qualitative interpretation of the agreement, we used the criteria described by Landis and Koch (Biometrics 33:159-174, 1977). RESULTS: The radiologists' agreement was 98.4% (Kappa, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.42-0.89). Agreement between semi-automated morphometry and SQ reached 97.6% and Kappa was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.66-0.94). In the whole evaluation of the spine semi-automated morphometry overestimates, the prevalence of fractures compared with the radiologists were 15.8% of women with fractures and 7.4% of women with moderate-severe fractures by semi-automated morphometry vs. 8.4% and 3.2% by the SQ method. The negative predictive value for MorphoXpress was 99% while the positive was 40%. CONCLUSIONS: Semi-automated morphometry shows high reliability and a substantial agreement with the SQ approach but overestimates the prevalence of fractures. Its role in routine clinical practice is limited because positive results should be reassessed by qualitative or semi-quantitative methods.
Authors: Giuseppe Guglielmi; Luca Pio Stoppino; Maria Grazia Placentino; Francesco D'Errico; Francesco Palmieri Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2007-12-19 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Pierre D Delmas; Lex van de Langerijt; Nelson B Watts; Richard Eastell; Harry Genant; Andreas Grauer; David L Cahall Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2004-12-06 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: N Kim; B H Rowe; G Raymond; H Jen; I Colman; S A Jackson; K G Siminoski; A M Chahal; D Folk; S R Majumdar Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Giuseppe Guglielmi; Francesco Palmieri; Maria Grazia Placentino; Francesco D'Errico; Luca Pio Stoppino Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: E V McCloskey; T D Spector; K S Eyres; E D Fern; N O'Rourke; S Vasikaran; J A Kanis Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 1993-05 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno; Isabel Hurtado; José Sanfélix-Genovés; Cristóbal Baixauli-Pérez; Clara L Rodríguez-Bernal; Salvador Peiró Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 3.240