Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Jun 15;33(14):1605-10.
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181791af3.

Reliability of readings of magnetic resonance imaging features of lumbar spinal stenosis

Jon D Lurie  1 , Anna N Tosteson, Tor D Tosteson, Eugene Carragee, John A Carrino, Jay Kaiser, Roberto T Blanco Sequeiros, Amy Rosen Lecomte, Margaret R Grove, Emily A Blood, Loretta H Pearson, James N Weinstein, Richard Herzog
Affiliations

Reliability of readings of magnetic resonance imaging features of lumbar spinal stenosis

Jon D Lurie et al. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). .

Erratum in

  • Spine. 2008 Oct 15;33(22):2482.. Carrino, John [corrected to Carrino, John A]

Abstract

Study design: A reliability assessment of standardized magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretations and measurements.

Objective: To determine the intra- and inter-reader reliability of MRI features of lumbar spinal stenosis (SPS), including severity of central, subarticular, and foraminal stenoses, grading of nerve root impingement, and measurements of cross-sectional area of the spinal canal and thecal sac.

Summary of background data: MRI is commonly used to assess patients with spinal stenosis. Although a number of studies have evaluated the reliability of certain MRI characteristics, comprehensive evaluation of the reliability of MRI readings in spinal stenosis is lacking.

Methods: Fifty-eight randomly selected MR images from patients with SPS enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial were evaluated. Qualitative ratings of imaging features were performed according to defined criteria by 4 independent readers (3 radiologists and 1 orthopedic surgeon). A sample of 20 MRIs was reevaluated by each reader at least 1 month later. Weighted kappa statistics were used to characterize intra- and inter-reader reliability for qualitative rating data. Separate quantitative measurements were performed by 2 other radiologists. Intraclass correlation coefficients and summaries of measurement error were used to characterize reliability for quantitative measurements.

Results: Intra-reader reliability was higher than inter-reader reliability for all features. Inter-reader reliability in assessing central stenosis was substantial, with an overall kappa of 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.77). Foraminal stenosis and nerve root impingement showed moderate to substantial agreement with overall kappa of 0.58 (95% CI 0.53-0.63) and 0.51 (95% CI 0.42-0.59), respectively. Subarticular zone stenosis yielded the poorest agreement (overall kappa 0.49; 95% CI 0.42-0.55) and showed marked variability in agreement between reader pairs. Quantitative measures showed inter-reader intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.58 to 0.90. The mean absolute difference between readers in measured thecal sac area was 128 mm (13%).

Conclusion: The imaging characteristics of spinal stenosis assessed in this study showed moderate to substantial reliability; future studies should assess whether these findings have prognostic significance in SPS patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Inter-reader reliability of qualitative ratings: Weighted κ, with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Inter-reader reliability of quantitative measurements: inter-reader comparison of thecal sac area at disc area for 52 patients.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Boden S, McCowin P, Davis D. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects: a prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg. 1990;72A:403–8. - PubMed
    1. Jensen M, Brant-Zawadzki M, Obuchowski N. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:69–73. - PubMed
    1. Stadnik TW, Lee RR, Coen HL, et al. Annular tears and disk herniation: prevalence and contrast enhancement on MR images in the absence of low back pain or sciatica. Radiology. 1998;206:49–55. - PubMed
    1. Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Hodler J, et al. MR imaging of the lumbar spine: prevalence of intervertebral disk extrusion and sequestration, nerve root compression, end plate abnormalities, and osteoarthritis of the facet joints in asymptomatic volunteers. Radiology. 1998;209:661–6. - PubMed
    1. Speciale AC, Pietrobon R, Urban CW, et al. Observer variability in assessing lumbar spinal stenosis severity on magnetic resonance imaging and its relation to cross-sectional spinal canal area. Spine. 2002;27:1082–6. - PubMed

Publication types