Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27589975›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2017

Impact of level of expertise versus the statistical tool on vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) readings in cohort studies.

B Aubry-Rozier, I Fabreguet, K Iglesias, O Lamy, D Hans

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Corrigendum to how to define an osteoporotic vertebral fracture.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2019
    Article
  4. How to define an osteoporotic vertebral fracture?Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2019
    Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

B Aubry-RozierCentre for Bone Diseases, Lausanne University Hospital, Avenue Pierre Decker 4, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. Berengere.aubry@chuv.ch.
I FabreguetCentre for Bone Diseases, Lausanne University Hospital, Avenue Pierre Decker 4, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
K IglesiasDépartement de médecine sociale et préventive, Lausanne University Hospital, Bugnon 21, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
O LamyCentre for Bone Diseases, Lausanne University Hospital, Avenue Pierre Decker 4, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
D HansCentre for Bone Diseases, Lausanne University Hospital, Avenue Pierre Decker 4, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
University of Lausanne · CHInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study tested if the accuracy of the VFA reading reproducibility is more affected by the statistical tool used or by the reader's level of expertise in 50 VFA from a population-based cohort, the OstéoLaus study. We found that uniform kappa and instruction reading with the ISCD/IOF VFA reading course both increased the accuracy of the reproducibility.

introductionVertebral fractures (VF) due to osteoporosis are under diagnosed. Screening osteoporosis in the general population allows improving management of fragility fracture. It consists to perform a dual X-ray absorptiometry and a spine X-ray to look at a VF. To reduce the dosage of radiation, prevalent or incident VF could be detected by DXA image. The aim of the present study was to test the reproducibility of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) readings in a population-based cohort and to explore if the accuracy of the reproducibility is more affected by the statistical tool used or by the reader's level of expertise.

methodsWe calculated the reproducibility of VFA reading by uniform and Cohen's kappa, comparing one expert and one non-expert, before and after an instructional on-line International Society of Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) /International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) course on VFA reading. We performed the analysis on 50 VFA from a population-based cohort, the OstéoLaus study.

resultsBefore the VFA reading course, reproducibility with Cohen's kappa was moderate to poor (0 to 0.520), good with the uniform kappa (0.796 to 0.958). After the course, both Cohen's kappa and uniform kappa statistically increased, ranging from 0.524 to 1.000.

conclusionsFor female population-based cohort studies, we recommend using the uniform kappa and instructing a non-expert reader using the ISCD/IOF VFA reading course to correctly read and evaluate the reproducibility of the VFA reading.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceAbsorptiometry, PhotonAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedLumbar VertebraeMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalOsteoporotic FracturesReproducibility of ResultsSpinal FracturesThoracic VertebraeCohen’s kappaExpert readerISCD/IOF VFA reading guidelinesPopulation-based cohortUniform kappaVFA reproducibility

Identifiers

PMID27589975
OpenAlexW2518149306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.