OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of the nerve root sedimentation sign, a relatively new radiological sign using magnetic resonance imaging, for diagnosing lumbar spinal stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature search was based on PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to March 2014. A total of 120 articles were identified. Seven studies involving 1,182 patients were included. RESULTS: The quality of the methodology of the seven studies was good. Overall, the pooled weighted value showed that the sedimentation sign had moderate sensitivity of 0.80 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.83] and high specificity of 0.96 (95 % CI 0.94-0.98). The area under the curve was 0.76. Subgroup analysis showed that the degree of morphological spinal stenosis was responsible for the heterogeneity. In the patients with severe morphological lumbar spinal stenosis, the sedimentation sign had even higher sensitivity and specificity: 0.899 (95 % CI 0.87-0.92) and 0.99 (95 % CI 0.98-1.00), respectively. The area under the curve was 0.96. In the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without definition of morphological stenosis, there was a notable threshold effect and significant heterogeneity. The area under the curve was 0.63. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that the sedimentation sign has high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing severe lumbar spinal stenosis. Its performance in diagnosing moderate and mild spinal stenosis, however, has yet to be corroborated in properly designed studies.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of the nerve root sedimentation sign, a relatively new radiological sign using magnetic resonance imaging, for diagnosing lumbar spinal stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature search was based on PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to March 2014. A total of 120 articles were identified. Seven studies involving 1,182 patients were included. RESULTS: The quality of the methodology of the seven studies was good. Overall, the pooled weighted value showed that the sedimentation sign had moderate sensitivity of 0.80 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.83] and high specificity of 0.96 (95 % CI 0.94-0.98). The area under the curve was 0.76. Subgroup analysis showed that the degree of morphological spinal stenosis was responsible for the heterogeneity. In the patients with severe morphological lumbar spinal stenosis, the sedimentation sign had even higher sensitivity and specificity: 0.899 (95 % CI 0.87-0.92) and 0.99 (95 % CI 0.98-1.00), respectively. The area under the curve was 0.96. In the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without definition of morphological stenosis, there was a notable threshold effect and significant heterogeneity. The area under the curve was 0.63. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that the sedimentation sign has high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing severe lumbar spinal stenosis. Its performance in diagnosing moderate and mild spinal stenosis, however, has yet to be corroborated in properly designed studies.
Authors: Merel Wassenaar; Rogier M van Rijn; Maurits W van Tulder; Arianne P Verhagen; Danielle A W M van der Windt; Bart W Koes; Michiel R de Boer; Abida Z Ginai; Raymond W J G Ostelo Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Thomas Barz; Lukas P Staub; Markus Melloh; Gregor Hamann; Sarah J Lord; Mark D Chatfield; Patrick M Bossuyt; Joern Lange; Harry R Merk Journal: Spine J Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Thomas Barz; Markus Melloh; Lukas P Staub; Sarah J Lord; Jörn Lange; Christoph P Röder; Jean-Claude Theis; Harry R Merk Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Marie E Weswood; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick N M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2006-03-06 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Christian Barz; Markus Melloh; Lukas P Staub; Sarah J Lord; Harry R Merk; Thomas Barz Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-02-04 Impact factor: 3.134