Search

Background and Purpose: The CTF nomenclature had not been tested in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability and diagnostic confidence in the interpretation of disk contours on lumbar 1.5T MR imaging when using the CTF and the Nordic nomenclatures., Materials and Methods: Five general radiologists from 3 hospitals blindly and independently assessed intravertebral herniations (Schmorl node) and disk contours on the lumbar MR imaging of 53 patients with low back pain, on 4 occasions. Measures were taken to minimize the risk of recall bias. The Nordic nomenclature was used for the first 2 assessments, and the CTF nomenclature, in the remaining 2. Radiologists had not previously used either of the 2 nomenclatures. κ statistics were calculated separately for reports deriving from each nomenclature and were 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), and poor (<0.00)., Results: Categorization of intra- and interobserver agreement was the same across nomenclatures. Intraobserver reliability was substantial for intravertebral herniations and disk contour abnormalities. Interobserver reliability was moderate for intravertebral herniations and fair to moderate for disk contour., Conclusions: In conditions close to clinical practice, regardless of the specific nomenclature used, a standardized nomenclature supports only moderate interobserver agreement. The Nordic nomenclature increases self-confidence in an individual observer's report but is less clear regarding the classification of disks as normal versus bulged.

Purpose: To evaluate intra- and interobserver agreement for the interpretation of lumbar 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) images in a community setting., Materials and Methods: The 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)., Results: Endplate 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., Conclusion: In 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 Material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.09090706/-/DC1., ((c) RSNA, 2010)

Background: Correlation between clinical features and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings is essential in low-back-pain patients. Most previous studies have analyzed concordance in the interpretation of lumbar MRI among a few radiologists who worked together. This may have overestimated concordance., Purpose: To evaluate intra- and interobserver agreement in the interpretation of lumbar MRI performed in an open 0.2 T system., Material and Methods: Seven radiologists from two different geographic settings in Spain interpreted the lumbar MRIs of 50 subjects representative of the general Danish population aged 40 years. The radiologists interpreted the images in routine clinical practice, having no knowledge of the clinical and demographic characteristics of the subjects and blinded to their colleagues' assessments. Six of the radiologists evaluated the same MRIs 14 days later, having no knowledge of the previous results. Data on the existence of disc degeneration, high-intensity zones, disc contour, Schmorl nodes, Modic changes, osteophytes, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis were collected in the Nordic Modic Consensus Group Classification form. Intra- and interobserver agreement was analyzed for variables with a prevalence >or=10% and