不同评估量表在磁共振成像腰椎椎间孔狭窄分类中的观察者间差异。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
European Spine Journal Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-20 DOI:10.1007/s00586-024-08612-z
José Sá Silva, Ana Pereira, Vasco Abreu, João Pedro Filipe
{"title":"不同评估量表在磁共振成像腰椎椎间孔狭窄分类中的观察者间差异。","authors":"José Sá Silva, Ana Pereira, Vasco Abreu, João Pedro Filipe","doi":"10.1007/s00586-024-08612-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The evaluation of lumbar spine degeneration on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is prone to inter-reader variability, including when assessing foraminal changes. This variability, often due to subjective criteria and inconsistent terminology, may affect clinical correlations. Standardized criteria could help improve agreement among readers.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>MRI of the lumbar spine of 50 randomly selected patients were evaluated by 12 independent readers. Foraminal stenosis was assessed using four different rating scales for each patient. The first scale classified stenosis as presence/absence of neurologic compromise of the spinal nerve root at the foramen, the second scale classified stenosis as absent/mild/moderate/severe, the third scale as normal/contact of disk or osteophyte with the nerve root/deviation of the nerve root/compression of the nerve root, and the fourth scale utilized the Lee et al. criteria. Agreement analysis was performed using Fleiss' kappa coefficients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Agreement was moderate using the first scale (k = 0.439), and significantly lower using the second, third and fourth scales (k = 0.310, k = 0.311, k = 0.295, respectively). When comparing the agreements obtained between board certified neuroradiologists and between neuroradiology residents, there was statistically significant differences when using the third and fourth scales, where the agreement for board certified neuroradiologists was higher, but still only fair. Individual kappas showed that in the second, third, and fourth scales the levels of agreement were higher in the extremes of the scale, namely, when there was no stenosis or when the stenosis was maximal with nerve compression.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Levels of agreement can differ depending on the scale used. Simpler dichotomous scales may return higher levels of agreement compared to more complex ones. For the non-dichotomous scales, using different scales may not result in overall different levels of agreement. Given the overall low inter-rater agreements observed, there is probably significant potential to enhance agreement through more rigorous training and consensus-building.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"869-873"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter-observer variability in the classification of lumbar foraminal stenosis in magnetic resonance imaging using different evaluation scales.\",\"authors\":\"José Sá Silva, Ana Pereira, Vasco Abreu, João Pedro Filipe\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00586-024-08612-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The evaluation of lumbar spine degeneration on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is prone to inter-reader variability, including when assessing foraminal changes. This variability, often due to subjective criteria and inconsistent terminology, may affect clinical correlations. Standardized criteria could help improve agreement among readers.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>MRI of the lumbar spine of 50 randomly selected patients were evaluated by 12 independent readers. Foraminal stenosis was assessed using four different rating scales for each patient. The first scale classified stenosis as presence/absence of neurologic compromise of the spinal nerve root at the foramen, the second scale classified stenosis as absent/mild/moderate/severe, the third scale as normal/contact of disk or osteophyte with the nerve root/deviation of the nerve root/compression of the nerve root, and the fourth scale utilized the Lee et al. criteria. Agreement analysis was performed using Fleiss' kappa coefficients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Agreement was moderate using the first scale (k = 0.439), and significantly lower using the second, third and fourth scales (k = 0.310, k = 0.311, k = 0.295, respectively). When comparing the agreements obtained between board certified neuroradiologists and between neuroradiology residents, there was statistically significant differences when using the third and fourth scales, where the agreement for board certified neuroradiologists was higher, but still only fair. Individual kappas showed that in the second, third, and fourth scales the levels of agreement were higher in the extremes of the scale, namely, when there was no stenosis or when the stenosis was maximal with nerve compression.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Levels of agreement can differ depending on the scale used. Simpler dichotomous scales may return higher levels of agreement compared to more complex ones. For the non-dichotomous scales, using different scales may not result in overall different levels of agreement. Given the overall low inter-rater agreements observed, there is probably significant potential to enhance agreement through more rigorous training and consensus-building.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"869-873\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08612-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08612-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:磁共振成像(MRI)对腰椎退变的评估容易出现解读者之间的差异,包括评估椎间孔变化时。这种可变性,通常是由于主观标准和不一致的术语,可能会影响临床相关性。标准化的标准有助于提高读者之间的一致性。材料与方法:随机选取50例患者,由12名独立阅读者对其腰椎MRI进行评价。椎间孔狭窄用四种不同的评分量表对每位患者进行评估。第一种量表将狭窄分为椎间孔处是否存在神经损伤,第二种量表将狭窄分为无/轻度/中度/严重,第三种量表分为正常/椎间盘或骨赘与神经根接触/神经根偏离/神经根受压,第四种量表采用Lee等人的标准。采用Fleiss kappa系数进行一致性分析。结果:第一种量表的一致性为中等(k = 0.439),第二、第三和第四种量表的一致性显著较低(k分别为0.310、0.311和0.295)。当比较委员会认证的神经放射学家和住院医师之间的一致性时,在使用第三和第四量表时存在统计学上的显著差异,委员会认证的神经放射学家的一致性更高,但仍然只是公平的。个体kappa显示,在第二、第三和第四量表中,一致性水平在极端情况下更高,即当没有狭窄或当狭窄最大并伴有神经压迫时。结论:根据使用的量表,同意的程度可能不同。相对于更复杂的二分类量表,更简单的二分类量表可能返回更高水平的一致性。对于非二分类量表,使用不同的量表可能不会导致总体上不同程度的一致性。鉴于所观察到的整体间协定很低,通过更严格的培训和建立协商一致意见可能有很大的潜力来加强协定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Inter-observer variability in the classification of lumbar foraminal stenosis in magnetic resonance imaging using different evaluation scales.

Background: The evaluation of lumbar spine degeneration on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is prone to inter-reader variability, including when assessing foraminal changes. This variability, often due to subjective criteria and inconsistent terminology, may affect clinical correlations. Standardized criteria could help improve agreement among readers.

Materials and methods: MRI of the lumbar spine of 50 randomly selected patients were evaluated by 12 independent readers. Foraminal stenosis was assessed using four different rating scales for each patient. The first scale classified stenosis as presence/absence of neurologic compromise of the spinal nerve root at the foramen, the second scale classified stenosis as absent/mild/moderate/severe, the third scale as normal/contact of disk or osteophyte with the nerve root/deviation of the nerve root/compression of the nerve root, and the fourth scale utilized the Lee et al. criteria. Agreement analysis was performed using Fleiss' kappa coefficients.

Results: Agreement was moderate using the first scale (k = 0.439), and significantly lower using the second, third and fourth scales (k = 0.310, k = 0.311, k = 0.295, respectively). When comparing the agreements obtained between board certified neuroradiologists and between neuroradiology residents, there was statistically significant differences when using the third and fourth scales, where the agreement for board certified neuroradiologists was higher, but still only fair. Individual kappas showed that in the second, third, and fourth scales the levels of agreement were higher in the extremes of the scale, namely, when there was no stenosis or when the stenosis was maximal with nerve compression.

Conclusions: Levels of agreement can differ depending on the scale used. Simpler dichotomous scales may return higher levels of agreement compared to more complex ones. For the non-dichotomous scales, using different scales may not result in overall different levels of agreement. Given the overall low inter-rater agreements observed, there is probably significant potential to enhance agreement through more rigorous training and consensus-building.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Spine Journal
European Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
373
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: "European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts. Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信