ArticleHeliyon2020
Interobserver and intraobserver variability in magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of patients with suspected disc herniation.
Article in Heliyon, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated detection of lumbar disc herniation at L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels on sagittal MRI using a YOLO-based deep learning model.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Anatomy and Pathology of Anterior and Lateral Hip Compartments Bursae: An Ultrasound Structured Approach in Sports Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Semi-automated end-to-end quality control system for annotation data based on automated Cobb angle measurement.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 · 2026Article
- Assessment of the Correlation between Macroscopic ICRS Grading and Histopathological OARSI Scoring in Osteoarthritic Cartilage: AnCartilage · 2026Article
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Spine MRI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Lightweight preprocessing and template matching facilitate streamlined ischemic myocardial scar classification.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence and spine imaging: limitations, regulatory issues and future direction.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 · 2022Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is usually the modality of choice to assess sciatica and intervertebral disc herniation. Despite remarkable progression in diagnostic imaging and surgical techniques, definite diagnosis based on imaging interpretation is still a great challenge. The aim of this study was to determine interobserver and intraobserver variability in reporting lumbar MRI between two neuroradiologists based on the new 2014 version of disc nomenclature. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe study population was composed of 134 irresponsive to conservative therapy patients with clinical presentations of disc herniation and lumbar radiculopathy. MRI was taken from all the participants using a 1.5 T MRI system. Two neuroradiologists evaluated the images, separately and one of them did it twice and interpreted the scans in sagittal and axial planes. Disc bulge, disc herniation and nerve root compression were evaluated at each level. Interobserver and interaobserver agreements between two neuroradiologists, and one neuroradiologist in two times of reporting were calculated for the evaluation of bulging and herniated discs and nerve root compression by applying the Kappa statistics.
resultsBulging disc, herniated disc, the type of disc, location of the discs, and nerve root compression diagnosis were significantly in excellent agreement (kappa>0.7, p-value<0.001) through intraobserver assessments, while interobserver assessments presented statistically significant with a fair agreement (kappa:0.4-0.7 and p-value<0.05).
conclusionRemarkable intraobserver agreement was found between diagnoses of disc-related pathologies of the lumbar spine while interobserver assessments revealed only fair concordance.
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.