ArticleSpine surgery and related research2023
Reliability of Conventional Two-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Diagnosing Extraforaminal Stenosis in Lumbosacral Transition.
Article in Spine surgery and related research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radical decompression without fusion for L5 radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is reportedly superior to two-dimensional (2D) MRI for diagnosing lumbar foraminal stenosis at L5-S1. In this study, we strictly distinguished the intra- and extraforaminal regions and compared the diagnostic reliability and accuracy of 2D and 3D MRI in each region. Methods: A total of 92 surgical cases of unilateral L5 radiculopathy were selected for imaging analysis, including 46 of foraminal stenosis at L5-S1 (Group F) and 46 of intraspinal canal stenosis at L4-5 (Group C) (48 men, 44 women; mean age, 66 years). The 2D and 3D MRI sets were assessed twice by two examiners. They were informed only of the laterality of the lesion in each case and asked to select among the following for each modality: "absence of foraminal stenosis," "intraforaminal stenosis," "extraforaminal stenosis," and "coincident intraforaminal and extraforaminal stenosis." The intra- and interobserver reliabilities were evaluated using kappa (κ) statistics for the intra- and extraforaminal regions and compared between 2D and 3D MRI. For each case, disagreements between examiners were resolved through discussion to obtain a diagnostic judgment for each modality. Subsequently, the final diagnosis of intra- and/or extraforaminal stenosis in Group F was made using multiple modalities and intraoperative findings. A comparison between 2D and 3D MRI in terms of diagnostic accuracy was performed for the intra- and extraforaminal regions. Results: No significant difference was observed in the κ statistics between 2D and 3D MRI for the intraforaminal region, whereas 3D MRI had significantly larger κ statistic than 2D MRI for the extraforaminal region. Ultimately, 3D MRI perfectly judged the extraforaminal region, whereas 2D MRI detected only 44.8% of the cases of extraforaminal stenosis. Conclusions: More than half of extraforaminal stenosis was overlooked by 2D MRI, suggesting that it is unreliable for diagnosing extraforaminal stenosis at L5-S1.
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.