Performance and reliability comparison: original vs. revised bone reporting and data system (Bone-RADS).

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Skeletal Radiology Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1007/s00256-025-04865-x
Sara Haseli, Chankue Park, Arash Azhideh, Gita Karande, Majid Chalian
{"title":"Performance and reliability comparison: original vs. revised bone reporting and data system (Bone-RADS).","authors":"Sara Haseli, Chankue Park, Arash Azhideh, Gita Karande, Majid Chalian","doi":"10.1007/s00256-025-04865-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To propose a revised bone reporting and data system (Bone-RADS) and evaluate its diagnostic performance and inter-reader reliability compared to the original Bone-RADS for solitary bone lesions on CT.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 159 adult patients (mean age: 56 ± 19 years; 88 men) who underwent bone biopsy for solitary bone lesions between March 2005 and September 2021. Two radiologists (R1/2) independently categorized the lesions twice, once using the original Bone-RADS and once using the revised version. Lesions were classified as follows: (1, benign; 2, incompletely assessed; 3, indeterminate; 4, malignancy or requiring treatment). The revised Bone-RADS excluded the original criteria for lesion related pain and history of malignancy. Diagnostic performance was assessed using histopathology as the reference standard, and inter-reader reliability was analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The bone lesions included 96 lucent and 63 sclerotic/mixed lesions. Sensitivity showed no significant difference between the original and revised Bone-RADS for both readers across lucent and sclerotic/mixed lesions (all P ≥ .05). However, the specificity of the revised Bone-RADS was significantly higher than that of the original (lucent: 11% vs. 50% [R1], 11% vs. 46% [R2]; sclerotic/mixed: 32% vs. 92% [R1], 32% vs. 86% [R2]). Other performance metrics, including positive/negative predictive value and accuracy, were also higher in the revised Bone-RADS. Inter-reader reliability was higher for the revised Bone-RADS compared to the original (κ = .744 vs .854).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The revised Bone-RADS significantly improved specificity while maintaining sensitivity compared to the original version.</p>","PeriodicalId":21783,"journal":{"name":"Skeletal Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"1681-1688"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Skeletal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-025-04865-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To propose a revised bone reporting and data system (Bone-RADS) and evaluate its diagnostic performance and inter-reader reliability compared to the original Bone-RADS for solitary bone lesions on CT.

Materials and methods: This retrospective study included 159 adult patients (mean age: 56 ± 19 years; 88 men) who underwent bone biopsy for solitary bone lesions between March 2005 and September 2021. Two radiologists (R1/2) independently categorized the lesions twice, once using the original Bone-RADS and once using the revised version. Lesions were classified as follows: (1, benign; 2, incompletely assessed; 3, indeterminate; 4, malignancy or requiring treatment). The revised Bone-RADS excluded the original criteria for lesion related pain and history of malignancy. Diagnostic performance was assessed using histopathology as the reference standard, and inter-reader reliability was analyzed.

Results: The bone lesions included 96 lucent and 63 sclerotic/mixed lesions. Sensitivity showed no significant difference between the original and revised Bone-RADS for both readers across lucent and sclerotic/mixed lesions (all P ≥ .05). However, the specificity of the revised Bone-RADS was significantly higher than that of the original (lucent: 11% vs. 50% [R1], 11% vs. 46% [R2]; sclerotic/mixed: 32% vs. 92% [R1], 32% vs. 86% [R2]). Other performance metrics, including positive/negative predictive value and accuracy, were also higher in the revised Bone-RADS. Inter-reader reliability was higher for the revised Bone-RADS compared to the original (κ = .744 vs .854).

Conclusion: The revised Bone-RADS significantly improved specificity while maintaining sensitivity compared to the original version.

性能和可靠性比较:原始与修订骨报告和数据系统(bone - rads)。
目的:提出一种改进的骨报告和数据系统(bone - rads),并与原始的bone - rads相比,评估其对CT孤立性骨病变的诊断性能和阅读器间可靠性。材料与方法:本回顾性研究纳入159例成人患者(平均年龄56±19岁;88名男性),在2005年3月至2021年9月期间因孤立性骨病变接受了骨活检。两名放射科医生(R1/2)独立对病变进行了两次分类,一次使用原始的Bone-RADS,一次使用修订后的版本。病变分类如下:(1)良性;2、评估不完全;3、不确定的;4、恶性或需要治疗)。修订后的骨- rads排除了病变相关疼痛和恶性肿瘤病史的原始标准。以组织病理学作为参考标准评估诊断性能,并分析阅读器间可靠性。结果:骨性病变96例,硬化/混合性病变63例。对于透明病变和硬化/混合性病变,原始和修改后的Bone-RADS的灵敏度均无显著差异(P均≥0.05)。然而,修改后的Bone-RADS的特异性明显高于原始的(朗讯:11% vs. 50% [R1], 11% vs. 46% [R2];硬化/混合型:32% vs. 92% [R1], 32% vs. 86% [R2])。其他性能指标,包括阳性/阴性预测值和准确性,在修订后的Bone-RADS中也更高。与原始版本(κ =)相比,修订后的Bone-RADS阅读器间信度更高。744 vs .854)。结论:与原始版本相比,修订后的Bone-RADS在保持敏感性的同时显著提高了特异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Skeletal Radiology
Skeletal Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.50%
发文量
253
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Skeletal Radiology provides a forum for the dissemination of current knowledge and information dealing with disorders of the musculoskeletal system including the spine. While emphasizing the radiological aspects of the many varied skeletal abnormalities, the journal also adopts an interdisciplinary approach, reflecting the membership of the International Skeletal Society. Thus, the anatomical, pathological, physiological, clinical, metabolic and epidemiological aspects of the many entities affecting the skeleton receive appropriate consideration. This is the Journal of the International Skeletal Society and the Official Journal of the Society of Skeletal Radiology and the Australasian Musculoskelelal Imaging Group.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信