Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Grading lumbar disc degeneration: a comparison between low- and high-field MRI

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{9d0ed14ba8d842e7be2aeb352dd6dd6c,
title = "Grading lumbar disc degeneration: a comparison between low- and high-field MRI",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: More advanced disc degeneration on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is found in individuals with low back pain. However, it is unclear whether this grading is independent of the scanner's field strength.PURPOSE: To compare disc degeneration on high- versus low-field MRI.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Low back pain patients were enrolled to undergo high-field (3 T) MRI, followed by low-field (0.25 T) MRI of the lumbar spine within 3 h. Three radiologists graded the disc degeneration on Pfirrmann's grading scale with a hiatus of 3 months. A subsample was regraded 6 months later. Reproducibility was measured by weighted kappa statistics (using PROC FREQ statement with AGREE in the TABLES statement for SAS), absolute agreement (i.e. 1:1 agreement/the total number) and the difference in the prevalence (McNemar test).RESULTS: Moderate to substantial agreement (κ = 0.52-0.62) and absolute agreement of 43.8-66.1{\%} were found between field strengths. Low-field MRI tended to have numerically higher and lower grades than high-field MRI resulting in a significant difference in the prevalence of grades ( p < 0.001). Both field strengths resulted in a moderate to substantial inter-reader agreement (low-field: κ = 0.63, 0.63, 0.54 and high-field: κ = 0.55, 0.43, 0.53) and intra-reader agreement (high-field: κ = 0.57, 0.77, 0.67 and low-field: κ = 0.51, 0.50, 0.70). Only, the reader with the shortest experience had better agreement with high-field compared to low-field.CONCLUSIONS: There were a significant difference in the prevalence of disc degeneration grading between 0.25 T and 3 T MRI. Therefore, field strength should be taken into consideration when comparing studies using disc degeneration grading as an outcome.",
keywords = "Disc degeneration, agreement, low back pain, magnetic fields, magnetic resonance imaging, reliability, Lumbar Vertebrae/diagnostic imaging, Humans, Middle Aged, Intervertebral Disc Degeneration/diagnostic imaging, Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods, Male, Young Adult, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Aged",
author = "Hansen, {Bjarke B} and Ciochon, {Urszula M} and Trampedach, {Charlotte R} and Christensen, {Anders F} and Zoreh Rasti and Mikael Boesen",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1177/0284185119842472",
language = "English",
volume = "60",
pages = "1636--1642",
journal = "Acta Radiologica",
issn = "0284-1851",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "12",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Grading lumbar disc degeneration

T2 - a comparison between low- and high-field MRI

AU - Hansen, Bjarke B

AU - Ciochon, Urszula M

AU - Trampedach, Charlotte R

AU - Christensen, Anders F

AU - Rasti, Zoreh

AU - Boesen, Mikael

PY - 2019/12

Y1 - 2019/12

N2 - BACKGROUND: More advanced disc degeneration on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is found in individuals with low back pain. However, it is unclear whether this grading is independent of the scanner's field strength.PURPOSE: To compare disc degeneration on high- versus low-field MRI.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Low back pain patients were enrolled to undergo high-field (3 T) MRI, followed by low-field (0.25 T) MRI of the lumbar spine within 3 h. Three radiologists graded the disc degeneration on Pfirrmann's grading scale with a hiatus of 3 months. A subsample was regraded 6 months later. Reproducibility was measured by weighted kappa statistics (using PROC FREQ statement with AGREE in the TABLES statement for SAS), absolute agreement (i.e. 1:1 agreement/the total number) and the difference in the prevalence (McNemar test).RESULTS: Moderate to substantial agreement (κ = 0.52-0.62) and absolute agreement of 43.8-66.1% were found between field strengths. Low-field MRI tended to have numerically higher and lower grades than high-field MRI resulting in a significant difference in the prevalence of grades ( p < 0.001). Both field strengths resulted in a moderate to substantial inter-reader agreement (low-field: κ = 0.63, 0.63, 0.54 and high-field: κ = 0.55, 0.43, 0.53) and intra-reader agreement (high-field: κ = 0.57, 0.77, 0.67 and low-field: κ = 0.51, 0.50, 0.70). Only, the reader with the shortest experience had better agreement with high-field compared to low-field.CONCLUSIONS: There were a significant difference in the prevalence of disc degeneration grading between 0.25 T and 3 T MRI. Therefore, field strength should be taken into consideration when comparing studies using disc degeneration grading as an outcome.

AB - BACKGROUND: More advanced disc degeneration on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is found in individuals with low back pain. However, it is unclear whether this grading is independent of the scanner's field strength.PURPOSE: To compare disc degeneration on high- versus low-field MRI.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Low back pain patients were enrolled to undergo high-field (3 T) MRI, followed by low-field (0.25 T) MRI of the lumbar spine within 3 h. Three radiologists graded the disc degeneration on Pfirrmann's grading scale with a hiatus of 3 months. A subsample was regraded 6 months later. Reproducibility was measured by weighted kappa statistics (using PROC FREQ statement with AGREE in the TABLES statement for SAS), absolute agreement (i.e. 1:1 agreement/the total number) and the difference in the prevalence (McNemar test).RESULTS: Moderate to substantial agreement (κ = 0.52-0.62) and absolute agreement of 43.8-66.1% were found between field strengths. Low-field MRI tended to have numerically higher and lower grades than high-field MRI resulting in a significant difference in the prevalence of grades ( p < 0.001). Both field strengths resulted in a moderate to substantial inter-reader agreement (low-field: κ = 0.63, 0.63, 0.54 and high-field: κ = 0.55, 0.43, 0.53) and intra-reader agreement (high-field: κ = 0.57, 0.77, 0.67 and low-field: κ = 0.51, 0.50, 0.70). Only, the reader with the shortest experience had better agreement with high-field compared to low-field.CONCLUSIONS: There were a significant difference in the prevalence of disc degeneration grading between 0.25 T and 3 T MRI. Therefore, field strength should be taken into consideration when comparing studies using disc degeneration grading as an outcome.

KW - Disc degeneration

KW - agreement

KW - low back pain

KW - magnetic fields

KW - magnetic resonance imaging

KW - reliability

KW - Lumbar Vertebrae/diagnostic imaging

KW - Humans

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Intervertebral Disc Degeneration/diagnostic imaging

KW - Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods

KW - Male

KW - Young Adult

KW - Adolescent

KW - Adult

KW - Female

KW - Aged

U2 - 10.1177/0284185119842472

DO - 10.1177/0284185119842472

M3 - Journal article

VL - 60

SP - 1636

EP - 1642

JO - Acta Radiologica

JF - Acta Radiologica

SN - 0284-1851

IS - 12

ER -

ID: 58098420