ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2018
Revalidating Pfirrmann's Magnetic Resonance Image-Based Grading of Lumbar Nerve Root Compromise by Calculating Reliability among Orthopaedic Residents.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- GPT-4 to obtain Pfirrmann grade from lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Axial T1-weighted imaging of the lumbar spine: a redundancy or an asset?Skeletal radiology · 2024Article
- The relationship between the degeneration and asymmetry of the lumbar multifidus and erector spinae muscles in patients with lumbar disc herniation with and without root compression.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Article
- Clinical and radiological predictors of response to lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection at 3 months: A retrospective study.Interventional pain medicine · 2022Article
- Spontaneous Total Resolution of Severe Lumbar Disc Herniation.Chonnam medical journal · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntervertebral disc herniations lead to subsequent compromise of the nerve root. The root can either have a mere contact with the disc material or be pushed aside or compressed. This was earlier graded by Pfirrmann and colleagues. We intend to revalidate this grading system by performing a reliability analysis among orthopaedic residents.
methodsFifty axial cut magnetic resonance (MR) images of the affected lumbar disc level that belonged to different patients (age, 37.8 ± 10.4 years; 33 males and 17 females) were chosen and given to five orthopaedic residents for grading according to the Pfirrmann's MR image-based grading of lumbar nerve root compromise. Responses were received in the form of categorical variables and reliability was assessed.
resultsOn doing percentage statistics, we found that 14 images had 100% agreement, 22 had 80% agreement and 14 had 60% agreement. We inferred an overall agreement of 80% ± 15.1%. In addition, interrater reliability was determined by calculating the Fleiss' kappa, which was found to be 0.521, signifying moderate agreement. Intrarater reliability was determined by calculating Cohen's kappa, which was found to be 0.696, signifying substantial agreement.
conclusionsOur residents took only a short time to learn and reproduce this grading system as ratings that proved to be moderately reliable. Even though the value of kappa was slightly lower, reliability was similar to that of the original authors. We think that this grading system can be adopted in day-to-day practice by framing appropriate rules to interpret MR images where the nerve roots are not visible.
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.