Literature DB >> 29995170

Does the META score evaluating osteoporotic and metastatic vertebral fractures have enough agreement to be used by orthopaedic surgeons with different levels of training?

Julio Urrutia1, Pablo Besa2, Sergio Morales2, Antonio Parlange2, Sebastian Flores2, Mauricio Campos2, Sebastian Mobarec2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Differentiating osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF) from metastatic vertebral fractures (MVF) is difficult. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based score (META score) aiming to differentiate OVF and MVF was recently published; however, an independent agreement assessment is required before the score is used. We performed such independent agreement evaluation, including raters with different levels of training.
METHODS: Sixty-four patients with confirmed OVF or MVF were evaluated by six raters (three spine surgeons and three orthopaedic residents) using the META score. We used the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to evaluate inter- and intra-observer agreement and the kappa statistic (κ) to determine the agreement for individual score criteria. We calculated the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) to establish the score accuracy.
RESULTS: The inter-observer agreement was poor [ICC = 0.22 (0.12-0.33)]; spine surgeons [ICC = 0.75 (0.66-0.83)] had better agreement than that of residents [ICC = 0.06 (- 0.07 to 0.23)]. The intra-observer agreement was poor [ICC = 0.15 (- 0.04 to 0.30)]; both spine surgeons [ICC = 0.21 (0.05-0.41)] and residents exhibited poor agreement [ICC = - 0.06 (- 0.40 to 0.20)]. The agreement for each specific criterion varied from κ = 0.24 to κ = 0.38. The AUC was 0.57 (0.64 for spine surgeons and 0.51 for residents, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: The inter-observer agreement using the META score was adequate for spine surgeons but not for residents; the intra-observer agreement was poor. These results do not support the standard use of the META score to differentiate OVF and MVF. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Agreement study; Differential diagnosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Metastatic vertebral fractures; Osteoporotic vertebral fractures

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29995170     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5694-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  30 in total

1.  Solitary vertebral collapse: distinction between benign and malignant causes using MR patterns.

Authors:  T T Shih; K M Huang; Y W Li
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Improved interobserver variation after training of doctors in the Neer system. A randomised trial.

Authors:  S Brorson; J Bagger; A Sylvest; A Hrøbjartsson; A Høbjartsson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2002-09

3.  An Independent Inter- and Intraobserver Agreement Evaluation of the AOSpine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System.

Authors:  Julio Urrutia; Tomas Zamora; Ratko Yurac; Mauricio Campos; Joaquin Palma; Sebastian Mobarec; Carlos Prada
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies.

Authors:  S D Walter; M Eliasziw; A Donner
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Influence of experience on intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of the Crowe, Hartofilakidis and modified Cochin classifications.

Authors:  A Clavé; L Tristan; A Desseaux; F Gaucher; C Lefèvre; E Stindel
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 2.256

6.  The importance of surgeons' experience on intraobserver and interobserver reliability of classifications used for Perthes disease.

Authors:  Onder Kalenderer; Haluk Agus; Isa Turkay Ozcalabi; Serkan Ozluk
Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.324

7.  Acute vertebral body compression fractures: discrimination between benign and malignant causes using apparent diffusion coefficients.

Authors:  J H M Chan; W C G Peh; E Y K Tsui; L F Chau; K K Cheung; K B Chan; M K Yuen; E T H Wong; K P C Wong
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture.

Authors:  R Lindsay; S L Silverman; C Cooper; D A Hanley; I Barton; S B Broy; A Licata; L Benhamou; P Geusens; K Flowers; H Stracke; E Seeman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-01-17       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Benign versus pathologic compression fractures of vertebral bodies: assessment with conventional spin-echo, chemical-shift, and STIR MR imaging.

Authors:  L L Baker; S B Goodman; I Perkash; B Lane; D R Enzmann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Is surgeons' experience important on intra- and inter-observer reliability of classifications used for adult femoral neck fracture?

Authors:  Ali Turgut; Mert Kumbaracı; Önder Kalenderer; Gökhan İlyas; Tayfun Bacaksız; Levent Karapınar
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 1.511

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.