ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2019
Evaluation criteria for the assessment of occupational diseases of the lumbar spine - how reliable are they?
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occupational hazard exposures among archivists.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Exploring Variations in Lumbar Canal Width: An MRI Study on Asymptomatic Patients by Age and Gender.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2005, the German Association of Occupational Accident Insurance Funds (DGUV) defined radiological evaluation criteria for the assessment of degenerative occupational diseases of the lumbar spine. These include the measurement of intervertebral osteochondrosis and classification of vertebral osteosclerosis, antero-lateral and posterior spondylosis, and spondyloarthritis via plain radiography. The measures currently remain in daily use for determining worker compensation among those with occupational diseases. Here, we aimed to evaluate the inter- and intra-observer reliability of these evaluation criteria.
methodsWe enrolled 100 patients with occupational degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine. Native antero-posterior and lateral radiographs of these patients were evaluated according to DGUV recommendations by 4 observers with different levels of clinical training. Evaluations were again conducted after 2 months to assess the intra-observer reliability.
resultsThe measurement of intervertebral osteochondrosis showed good inter-observer reliability (ICC: 0.755) and excellent intra-observer reliability (ICC: 0.827). The classification of vertebral osteosclerosis exhibited moderate kappa values for inter-observer reliability (К: 0.426) and intra-observer reliability (К: 0.441); the remaining 3 criteria showed poor inter- and intra-observer reliabilities.
conclusionThe measurement of intervertebral osteochondrosis and classification of vertebral osteosclerosis showed adequate inter- and intra-observer reliability in the assessment of occupational diseases of the lumbar spine, whereas the classification of antero-lateral and posterior spondylosis and spondyloarthritis stage exhibited insufficient reliability. Hence, we recommend the revision of the DGUV recommendations for the evaluation of occupational diseases of the lumbar spine.
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.