Bjarke B Hansen1, Philip Hansen2, Anders F Christensen2, Charlotte Trampedach2, Zoreh Rasti2, Henning Bliddal3, Mikael Boesen2. 1. The Parker Institute, Department of Reumatology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Nordre Fasanvej 57, 2000 F, København Ø, Denmark. dr.bjarke@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Denmark, Nordre Fasanvej 57-59, Vej 4 indgang 8, 2000 F, København Ø, Denmark. 3. The Parker Institute, Department of Reumatology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Nordre Fasanvej 57, 2000 F, København Ø, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the reliability and absolute agreement of common degenerative findings in standing positional magnetic resonance imaging (pMRI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Low back pain patients with and without sciatica were consecutively enrolled to undergo a supine and standing pMRI. Three readers independently evaluated the standing pMRI for herniation, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, HIZ lesions and facet joint effusion. The evaluation included a semi-quantitative grading of spinal stenosis, foraminal stenosis and spinal nerve root compression. The standing pMRI images were evaluated with full access to supine MRI. In case lower grades or the degenerative findings were not present in the supine images, this was reported separately as position-dependent changes. A subsample of 20 pMRI examinations was reevaluated after two months. The reproducibility was assessed by inter- and intra-reader reliability (kappa statistic) and absolute agreement between readers. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included in this study. There was fair-to-substantial inter-reader reliability (κ 0.47 to 0.82) and high absolute agreement (72.3% to 99.1%) for the pMRI findings. The intra-reader assessment showed similar reliability and agreement (κ 0.36 to 0.85; absolute agreement: 62.5% to 98.8%). Positional changes between the supine and standing position showed a fair-to-moderate inter- and intra-reader reliability (κ 0.25 to 0.52; absolute agreement: 97.0% to 99.1). CONCLUSION: Evaluation of the lumbar spine for degenerative findings by standing pMRI has acceptable reproducibility; however, positional changes from the supine to the standing position as an independent outcome should be interpreted with caution because of lower reliability, which calls for further standardisation.
OBJECTIVE: To test the reliability and absolute agreement of common degenerative findings in standing positional magnetic resonance imaging (pMRI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Low back painpatients with and without sciatica were consecutively enrolled to undergo a supine and standing pMRI. Three readers independently evaluated the standing pMRI for herniation, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, HIZ lesions and facet joint effusion. The evaluation included a semi-quantitative grading of spinal stenosis, foraminal stenosis and spinal nerve root compression. The standing pMRI images were evaluated with full access to supine MRI. In case lower grades or the degenerative findings were not present in the supine images, this was reported separately as position-dependent changes. A subsample of 20 pMRI examinations was reevaluated after two months. The reproducibility was assessed by inter- and intra-reader reliability (kappa statistic) and absolute agreement between readers. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included in this study. There was fair-to-substantial inter-reader reliability (κ 0.47 to 0.82) and high absolute agreement (72.3% to 99.1%) for the pMRI findings. The intra-reader assessment showed similar reliability and agreement (κ 0.36 to 0.85; absolute agreement: 62.5% to 98.8%). Positional changes between the supine and standing position showed a fair-to-moderate inter- and intra-reader reliability (κ 0.25 to 0.52; absolute agreement: 97.0% to 99.1). CONCLUSION: Evaluation of the lumbar spine for degenerative findings by standing pMRI has acceptable reproducibility; however, positional changes from the supine to the standing position as an independent outcome should be interpreted with caution because of lower reliability, which calls for further standardisation.
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet; Jeroen G Lijmer Journal: Croat Med J Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 1.351
Authors: John A Carrino; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Eugene J Carragee; Jay Kaiser; Margaret R Grove; Emily Blood; Loretta H Pearson; James N Weinstein; Richard Herzog Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-10-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Constantin Schizas; Nicolas Theumann; Alexandre Burn; Rosamond Tansey; Douglas Wardlaw; Francis W Smith; Gerit Kulik Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jun Zou; Huilin Yang; Masashi Miyazaki; Feng Wei; Soon W Hong; Seung H Yoon; Yuichiro Morishita; Jeffrey C Wang Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Tim Finkenstaedt; Filippo Del Grande; Nicolae Bolog; Nils H Ulrich; Sina Tok; Jakob M Burgstaller; Johann Steurer; Christine B Chung; Gustav Andreisek; Sebastian Winklhofer Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Christian I Weber; Ching-Ting Hwang; Linda R van Dillen; Simon Y Tang Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 2.063