• Radiology · Mar 2010

    Lumbar spine: agreement in the interpretation of 1.5-T MR images by using the Nordic Modic Consensus Group classification form.

    • Estanislao Arana, Ana Royuela, Francisco M Kovacs, Ana Estremera, Helena Sarasíbar, Guillermo Amengual, Isabel Galarraga, Carmen Martínez, Alfonso Muriel, Víctor Abraira, María Teresa Gil Del Real, Javier Zamora, and Carlos Campillo.
    • Department of Radiology, Hospital Quirón, Valencia, Spain; Spanish Back Pain Research Network and Scientific Department, Fundación Kovacs, Paseo de Mallorca 36, 07012 Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
    • Radiology. 2010 Mar 1; 254 (3): 809-17.

    PurposeTo evaluate intra- and interobserver agreement for the interpretation of lumbar 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) images in a community setting.Materials And MethodsThe study design was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Ramón y Cajal Hospital. According to Spanish law, for this type of study, no informed consent was necessary. Five radiologists from three hospitals twice interpreted lumbar MR examination results in 53 patients with low back pain, with at least a 14-day interval between assessments. Radiologists were unaware of the clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients and of their colleagues' assessments. At the second assessment, they were unaware of the results of the first assessment. Reports on Modic changes, osteophytes, Schmorl nodes, diffuse defects, disk degeneration, annular tears (high-signal-intensity zones), disk contour, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis were collected by using the Spanish version of the Nordic Modic Consensus Group classification. The kappa statistic was used to assess intra- and interobserver agreement for findings with a prevalence of 10% or greater and 90% or lower. kappa was categorized as almost perfect (0.81-1.00), substantial (0.61-0.80), moderate (0.41-0.60), fair (0.21-0.40), slight (0.00-0.20), or poor (<0.00).ResultsEndplate erosions and spondylolisthesis were observed in less than 10% of images. Intraobserver reliability was almost perfect for spinal stenosis; substantial for Modic changes, Schmorl nodes, disk degeneration, annular tears, and disk contour; and moderate for osteophytes. Interobserver reliability was moderate for Modic changes, Schmorl nodes, disk degeneration, annular tears, and disk contour; fair for osteophytes; and poor for spinal stenosis.ConclusionIn conditions close to those of clinical practice, there was only moderate interobserver agreement in the reporting of findings at 1.5-T lumbar MR imaging.Supplemental Materialhttp://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.09090706/-/DC1.(c) RSNA, 2010

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    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..

    hide…