• Eur J Radiol · Sep 2004

    Comparative Study

    Observer variability based on the strength of MR scanners in the assessment of lumbar degenerative disc disease.

    • Mutlu Cihangiroglu, Hanifi Yildirim, Zulkif Bozgeyik, Utku Senol, Huseyin Ozdemir, Cahide Topsakal, and Saim Yilmaz.
    • Department of Radiology, Firat University School of Medicine, Elazig, Turkey. mmutlucihan@hotmail.com
    • Eur J Radiol. 2004 Sep 1; 51 (3): 202-8.

    Objectaim of this study was to analyse the observer variability in the diagnosis and definition of disc pathologies with low and high-field strength MR scanners.Material And Methods95 patients with low back pain or radicular pain who were referred from two different centers were included in the study. Fifty-seven patients were scanned with 0.3 T MR (group 1) and 38 patients with 1.5 T (group 2). The intraobserver and interobserver reliability were assessed with the cappa coefficient which was characterised as follows: values less than 0.0 = 'poor' agreement, values 0.01-0.2 = 'slight' agreement beyond chance, 0.21-0.4 = 'fair' agreement, 0.41-0.60 = 'moderate' agreement, 0.61-0.80 = 'substantial' agreement and 0.81-1.00 = 'almost perfect' agreement.Resultsintraobserver agreement in group 1 and group 2 for both readers was 'almost perfect' in differentiating normal and pathological discs; 'substantial-almost perfect' in defining the disc pathologies, 'moderate-substantial' in root compression, and 'moderate-substantial' in spinal stenosis. Interobserver agreement was 'almost perfect' in differentiating normal and pathological discs, 'substantial' in defining disc pathologies, 'moderate' in root compression and 'moderate' in spinal stenosis in the group 1, whereas in group 2, it was 'almost perfect' in differentiating normal and pathological discs, 'almost perfect' in defining disc pathologies, 'slight-substantial' in root compression and 'moderate' in spinal stenosis.Conclusionin the diagnosis of root compression and spinal stenosis, the intra and interobserver agreements were relatively poor with both high and low-strength field MRIs, indicating a need for more objective criteria. In differentiating normal and pathologic appearance of disc, the interobserver agreement was considerably better with high-field compared to low-field strength MRI. In cases where this definition is important, high-field strength scanners should be preferred.

      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…