Annemarie de Zoete1, Raymond Ostelo, Dirk L Knol, Paul R Algra, Jan T Wilmink, Maurits W van Tulder. 1. *Department Health Sciences and EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth & Life Science, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands †Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands ‡Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth & Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands §Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands ¶Medical Centre, Alkmaar, Alkmaar, the Netherlands ‖MRI Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands **Department of Health Science and EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth & Life Science, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands; and ††Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. MRI group, they are working mainly in private practice.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in 2 sessions. OBJECTIVE: It is important to know whether it is possible to accurately detect "specific findings" on lumbosacral magnetic resonance (MR) images and whether the results of different observers are comparable. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Health care providers frequently use magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnostic process of patients with low back pain. The use of MR scans is increasing. This leads to an increase in costs and to an increase in risk of inaccurately labeling patients with an anatomical diagnosis that might not be the actual cause of symptoms. METHODS: A set of 300 blinded MR images was read by medical radiologists, chiropractors, and chiropractic radiologists in 2 sessions. Each assessor read 100 scans in round 1 and 50 scans in round 2. The reference test was an expert panel.For all analyses, the magnetic resonance imaging findings were dichotomized into "specific findings" or "no specific findings." For the agreement, percentage agreement and κ values were calculated and for validity, sensitivity, and specificity. Sensitivity analysis was done for classifications A and B (prevalence of 31% and 57%, respectively). RESULTS: The intraobserver κ values for chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists were 0.46, 0.49, and 0.69 for A and 0.55, 0.75, and 0.64 for B, respectively.The interobserver κ values were lowest for chiropractors (0.28 for A, 0.37 for B) and highest for chiropractic radiologists (0.50 for A, 0.49 for B).The sensitivities of the medical radiologists, chiropractors, and chiropractic radiologists were 0.62, 0.71, and 0.75 for A and 0.70, 0.74, 0.84 for B, respectively.The specificities of medical radiologists, chiropractic radiologists, and chiropractors were 0.82, 0.77, and 0.70 for A and 0.74, 0.52, and 0.61 for B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Agreement and validity of MR image readings of chiropractors and chiropractic and medical radiologists is modest at best. This study supports recommendations in clinical guidelines against routine use of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with low back pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in 2 sessions. OBJECTIVE: It is important to know whether it is possible to accurately detect "specific findings" on lumbosacral magnetic resonance (MR) images and whether the results of different observers are comparable. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Health care providers frequently use magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnostic process of patients with low back pain. The use of MR scans is increasing. This leads to an increase in costs and to an increase in risk of inaccurately labeling patients with an anatomical diagnosis that might not be the actual cause of symptoms. METHODS: A set of 300 blinded MR images was read by medical radiologists, chiropractors, and chiropractic radiologists in 2 sessions. Each assessor read 100 scans in round 1 and 50 scans in round 2. The reference test was an expert panel.For all analyses, the magnetic resonance imaging findings were dichotomized into "specific findings" or "no specific findings." For the agreement, percentage agreement and κ values were calculated and for validity, sensitivity, and specificity. Sensitivity analysis was done for classifications A and B (prevalence of 31% and 57%, respectively). RESULTS: The intraobserver κ values for chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists were 0.46, 0.49, and 0.69 for A and 0.55, 0.75, and 0.64 for B, respectively.The interobserver κ values were lowest for chiropractors (0.28 for A, 0.37 for B) and highest for chiropractic radiologists (0.50 for A, 0.49 for B).The sensitivities of the medical radiologists, chiropractors, and chiropractic radiologists were 0.62, 0.71, and 0.75 for A and 0.70, 0.74, 0.84 for B, respectively.The specificities of medical radiologists, chiropractic radiologists, and chiropractors were 0.82, 0.77, and 0.70 for A and 0.74, 0.52, and 0.61 for B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Agreement and validity of MR image readings of chiropractors and chiropractic and medical radiologists is modest at best. This study supports recommendations in clinical guidelines against routine use of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with low back pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Authors: Ralf H J M Kurvers; Annemarie de Zoete; Shelby L Bachman; Paul R Algra; Raymond Ostelo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 3.240