-
Comparative Study
Observer variation in the evaluation of lumbar herniated discs and root compression: spiral CT compared with MRI.
- J C van Rijn, N Klemetso, J B Reitsma, P M Bossuyt, F J Hulsmans, W C Peul, G J den Heeten, J Stam, and C B L M Majoie.
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, AZ, Amsterdam.
- Br J Radiol. 2006 May 1;79(941):372-7.
AbstractSpiral CT is considered the best alternative for MRI in the evaluation of herniated discs. The purpose of this study was to compare radiological evaluation of spiral CT with MRI in patients suspected of herniated discs. 57 patients with lumbosacral radicular syndrome underwent spiral CT and 1.5 T MRI. Two neuroradiologists independently evaluated 171 intervertebral discs for herniation or "bulge" and 456 nerve roots for root compression, once after CT and once after MRI. We compared interobserver agreement using the kappa statistic and we performed a paired comparison between CT and MRI. For detection of herniated or bulging discs, we observed no significant difference in interobserver agreement (CT kappa 0.66 vs MRI kappa 0.71; p = 0.40). For root compression, we observed significantly better interobserver agreement at MRI evaluation (CT kappa 0.59 vs MRI kappa 0.78; p = 0.01). In 30 of 171 lumbar discs (18%) and in 54 of 456 nerve roots (12%), the observers disagreed on whether CT results were similar to MRI. In the cases without disagreement, CT differed from MRI in 6 discs (3.5%) and in 3 nerve roots (0.7%). For radiological evaluation of lumbar herniated discs, we found no evidence that spiral CT is inferior to MRI. For evaluating lumbar nerve root compression, spiral CT is less reliable than MRI.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.