OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intra and interobserver reproducibility of 4 measuring instruments for assessing joint space width in knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to estimate the effects of patients, instrument, session order, and reader variation. METHODS: We studied 30 patients with unilateral tibiofemoral OA selected to represent a broad range of radiographic changes. Joint space width (JSW) was measured on plain anteroposterior weight bearing radiographs. Using an experimental design, 3 readers assessed JSW 3 times with 4 measuring instruments (ruler, caliper, graduated magnifying glass, digitized assessment). RESULTS: Intra and interobserver reproducibility was high with all measuring instruments (intraclass correlation coefficients from 0.95 to 0.98 and from 0.91 to 0.97, respectively). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a patient effect (p < 10(-6)), a reader effect (p = 0.0001), an instrument effect (p = 0.0001), and a session order effect (p = 0.04). The variance component estimates were patients 55%, readers 34%, session order 2%, instruments 8%. ANOVA performed separately for each instrument showed that session order differences always represented less than 1% of the total variance. The reader component accounted for 0% of the total variance for the ruler, 2% for the digitized method, 16% for the caliper, and 18% for the graduated magnifying glass. CONCLUSION: Ruler and digitized assessment have better reliability than caliper and graduated magnifying glass.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intra and interobserver reproducibility of 4 measuring instruments for assessing joint space width in knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to estimate the effects of patients, instrument, session order, and reader variation. METHODS: We studied 30 patients with unilateral tibiofemoral OA selected to represent a broad range of radiographic changes. Joint space width (JSW) was measured on plain anteroposterior weight bearing radiographs. Using an experimental design, 3 readers assessed JSW 3 times with 4 measuring instruments (ruler, caliper, graduated magnifying glass, digitized assessment). RESULTS: Intra and interobserver reproducibility was high with all measuring instruments (intraclass correlation coefficients from 0.95 to 0.98 and from 0.91 to 0.97, respectively). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a patient effect (p < 10(-6)), a reader effect (p = 0.0001), an instrument effect (p = 0.0001), and a session order effect (p = 0.04). The variance component estimates were patients 55%, readers 34%, session order 2%, instruments 8%. ANOVA performed separately for each instrument showed that session order differences always represented less than 1% of the total variance. The reader component accounted for 0% of the total variance for the ruler, 2% for the digitized method, 16% for the caliper, and 18% for the graduated magnifying glass. CONCLUSION: Ruler and digitized assessment have better reliability than caliper and graduated magnifying glass.
Authors: Manish Kothari; Ali Guermazi; Gabriele von Ingersleben; Yves Miaux; Martine Sieffert; Jon E Block; Randall Stevens; Charles G Peterfy Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-05-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Heidi L Oksendahl; Nigel Gomez; Colleen S Thomas; Gary D Badger; Michael J Hulstyn; Paul D Fadale; Braden C Fleming Journal: J Knee Surg Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: John A Carrino; Abdullah Al Muhit; Wojciech Zbijewski; Gaurav K Thawait; J Webster Stayman; Nathan Packard; Robert Senn; Dong Yang; David H Foos; John Yorkston; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: V P Mantripragada; N S Piuzzi; T Zachos; N A Obuchowski; G F Muschler; R J Midura Journal: Curr Res Transl Med Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 4.513
Authors: G Neumann; D Hunter; M Nevitt; L B Chibnik; K Kwoh; H Chen; T Harris; S Satterfield; J Duryea Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2008-11-12 Impact factor: 6.576