ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2012
Interobserver agreement in fusion status assessment after instrumental desis of the lower lumbar spine using 64-slice multidetector computed tomography: impact of observer experience.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Online Studies on Variation in Orthopedic Surgery: Computed Tomography in MPEG4 Versus DICOM Format.Journal of digital imaging · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePersistent lower back pain after instrumental posterolateral desis may arise from incomplete fusion. We investigate the impact of experience on interobserver agreement in fusion estimation.
methodsFour independent observers, two residents and two musculoskeletal radiologists, reviewed dedicated lumbar 64-MDCT scans and scored vertebral levels 1-5 after Glassman's grades, 1: solid bilateral fusion, 2: solid unilateral fusion, 3: partial bilateral fusion, 4: partial unilateral fusion, 5: non-fusion. We investigated two simplifying dichotomizations, solid bilateral fusion (Glassman 1) versus all others and uni- or bilateral fusion (Glassman 1-2) versus partial or non-fusion.
resultsThirty-six patients with 61 operated lumbar levels were included. Interobserver agreement rates for four observers using Glassman's system were fair (kappa 0.32), either dichotomization showed moderate agreement (kappa 0.53 and 0.59). Observer pairs had comparable prevalence adjusted interobserver agreement rates (residents: PABAK 0.67 and 0.54; consultants: PABAK 0.57 and 0.71).
conclusionsDifference in observer experience seems of minor impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.