ArticleChiropractic & manual therapies2013
A method for quantitative measurement of lumbar intervertebral disc structures: an intra- and inter-rater agreement and reliability study.
Article in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical utility of foundation models in musculoskeletal MRI for biomarker fidelity and predictive outcomes.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Relation of lumbar intervertebral disc height and severity of disc degeneration based on Pfirrmann scores.Heliyon · 2023Article
- The Relationship between Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Functional Tests Assessment in Patients with Lumbar Disk Hernia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Novel Methods to Measure Height and Volume in Healthy and Degenerated Lumbar Discs in MRIs: A Reliability Assessment Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Smaller Intervertebral Disc Volume and More Disc Degeneration after Spinal Distraction in Scoliotic Children.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Does Size Matter? An Analysis of the Effect of Lumbar Disc Herniation Size on the Success of Nonoperative Treatment.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- Treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease-associated radicular pain with culture-expanded autologous mesenchymal stem cells: a pilot study on safety and efficacy.Journal of translational medicine · 2017Article
- The segment-dependent changes in lumbar intervertebral space height during flexion-extension motion.Bone & joint research · 2017Article
- Progression of lumbar disc herniations over an eight-year period in a group of adult Danes from the general population--a longitudinal MRI study using quantitative measures.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Observational
- The relationship between quantitative measures of disc height and disc signal intensity with Pfirrmann score of disc degeneration.SpringerPlus · 2016Article
- On the relative relevance of subject-specific geometries and degeneration-specific mechanical properties for the study of cell death in human intervertebral disk models.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2015Review
- Preliminary study of the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure for Children and its reliability.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a shortage of agreement studies relevant for measuring changes over time in lumbar intervertebral disc structures. The objectives of this study were: 1) to develop a method for measurement of intervertebral disc height, anterior and posterior disc material and dural sac diameter using MRI, 2) to evaluate intra- and inter-rater agreement and reliability for the measurements included, and 3) to identify factors compromising agreement.
methodsMeasurements were performed on MRIs from 16 people with and 16 without lumbar disc herniation, purposefully chosen to represent all possible disc contours among participants in a general population study cohort. Using the new method, MRIs were measured twice by one rater and once by a second rater. Agreement on the sagittal start- and end-slice was evaluated using weighted Kappa. Length and volume measurements were conducted on available slices between intervertebral foramens, and cross-sectional areas (CSA) were calculated from length measurements and slice thickness. Results were reported as Bland and Altman's limits of agreement (LOA) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
resultsWeighted Kappa (Kw (95% CI)) for start- and end-slice were: intra-: 0.82(0.60;0.97) & 0.71(0.43;0.93); inter-rater: 0.56(0.29;0.78) & 0.60(0.35;0.81). For length measurements, LOA ranged from [-1.0;1.0] mm to [-2.0;2.3] mm for intra-; and from [-1.1; 1.4] mm to [-2.6;2.0] mm for inter-rater. For volume measurements, LOA ranged from [-293;199] mm3 to [-582;382] mm3 for intra-, and from [-17;801] mm3 to [-450;713] mm3 for inter-rater. For CSAs, LOA ranged between [-21.3; 18.8] mm2 and [-31.2; 43.7] mm2 for intra-, and between [-10.8; 16.4] mm2 and [-64.6; 27.1] mm2 for inter-rater. In general, LOA as a proportion of mean values gradually decreased with increasing size of the measured structures. Agreement was compromised by difficulties in identifying the vertebral corners, the anterior and posterior boundaries of the intervertebral disc and the dural sac posterior boundary. With two exceptions, ICCs were above 0.81.
conclusionsLength measurements and calculated CSAs of disc morphology and dural sac diameter from MRIs showed acceptable intra- and inter-rater agreement and reliability. However, caution should be taken when measuring very small structures and defining anatomical landmarks.
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.