Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29995170›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2018

Does the META score evaluating osteoporotic and metastatic vertebral fractures have enough agreement to be used by orthopaedic surgeons with different levels of training?

Julio Urrutia, Pablo Besa, Sergio Morales, Antonio Parlange, Sebastian Flores, Mauricio Campos, Sebastian Mobarec

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Assessment of inter- and intraobserver agreement for META score in distinguishing osteoporotic from multiple myeloma vertebral fractures.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 · 2024
    Observational
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

7 authors.

Julio UrrutiaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcoleta 352, Santiago, Chile. jurrutia@med.puc.cl.ORCID 0000-0003-1757-1144
Pablo BesaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcoleta 352, Santiago, Chile.
Sergio MoralesDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcoleta 352, Santiago, Chile.
Antonio ParlangeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcoleta 352, Santiago, Chile.
Sebastian FloresDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcoleta 352, Santiago, Chile.
Mauricio CamposDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcoleta 352, Santiago, Chile.
Sebastian MobarecDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcoleta 352, Santiago, Chile.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDifferentiating osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF) from metastatic vertebral fractures (MVF) is difficult. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based score (META score) aiming to differentiate OVF and MVF was recently published; however, an independent agreement assessment is required before the score is used. We performed such independent agreement evaluation, including raters with different levels of training.

methodsSixty-four patients with confirmed OVF or MVF were evaluated by six raters (three spine surgeons and three orthopaedic residents) using the META score. We used the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to evaluate inter- and intra-observer agreement and the kappa statistic (κ) to determine the agreement for individual score criteria. We calculated the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) to establish the score accuracy.

resultsThe inter-observer agreement was poor [ICC = 0.22 (0.12-0.33)]; spine surgeons [ICC = 0.75 (0.66-0.83)] had better agreement than that of residents [ICC = 0.06 (- 0.07 to 0.23)]. The intra-observer agreement was poor [ICC = 0.15 (- 0.04 to 0.30)]; both spine surgeons [ICC = 0.21 (0.05-0.41)] and residents exhibited poor agreement [ICC = - 0.06 (- 0.40 to 0.20)]. The agreement for each specific criterion varied from κ = 0.24 to κ = 0.38. The AUC was 0.57 (0.64 for spine surgeons and 0.51 for residents, p < 0.01).

conclusionThe inter-observer agreement using the META score was adequate for spine surgeons but not for residents; the intra-observer agreement was poor. These results do not support the standard use of the META score to differentiate OVF and MVF. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansOsteoporotic FracturesROC CurveSpinal FracturesAgreement studyDifferential diagnosisMagnetic resonance imagingMetastatic vertebral fracturesOsteoporotic vertebral fractures

Identifiers

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.