ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of Sacroiliitis Grade Readings on the Same Plain Radiographs by the Same Observer at Different Periods.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Clinical Knowledge on the Evaluation of Sacroiliac Joint Radiography in Patients with Spondyloarthritis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Advancements in Imaging Techniques for Early Diagnosis and Management of Axial Spondyloarthritis.Current rheumatology reports · 2024Review
- Review
- Brucellar arthritis and sacroiliitis: an 8-year retrospective comparative analysis of demographic, clinical, and paraclinical features.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate whether there is a difference between the readings of plain sacroiliac radiographs of patients with sacroiliitis by the same observer. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn the study, we included patients diagnosed with sacroiliitis through sacroiliac MRI who had undergone plain radiographs at our center between 2015 and 2022. The radiographic grading of patients was conducted by transferring their demographic and clinical information into a computerized environment so that these details would not be identifiable. The plain radiographs were numbered, and the responses were graded as grade 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 for the right and left sacroiliac joints. The next day, using the same procedure, the same clinician re-evaluated the same plain radiographs in a different order without viewing the previous responses. This method was employed to prevent bias. The results (kappa value) were evaluated (0.00-0.20: slight agreement, 0.21-0.40: fair agreement, 0.41-0.60: moderate agreement, 0.61-0.80: substantial agreement, 0.81-1.00: perfect agreement).
resultsThe study population included 478 patients and 956 sacroiliac joints from plain radiographs, both on the right and left. Following the observer's classification of the sacroiliac joints into 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, a moderate level of agreement was found in the second evaluation of the same observer a day later with the same grades (p<0.001, kappa: 0.576). When categorized as grade 0-1 and grade 2-4, there was moderate agreement (p<0.001, kappa: 0.519), and categorization into grades 0-2 and 3-4 showed substantial agreement (p<0.001, kappa: 0.715). Analyzing the categorization into grades 0-3 and grade 4 revealed a higher kappa value, indicating substantial agreement (p<0.001, kappa: 0.766).
conclusionIntraobserver interpretation of radiographs may be more accurate than the interpretation of different specialists. While interpreting plain radiographs, we observed variability between adjacent grades but less variability between distant grades. However, these results need to be validated.
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.