Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38717495›Full record

Observational studyEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024

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

Eduardo Henrique Chiovato Abdala, João Pedro Almeida E Oliveira, Mariana Demétrio de Sousa Pontes, Ângelo Augusto Bongiolo Ganeo, Marcelo Henrique Nogueira-Barbosa, Carlos Fernando P S Herrero

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Eduardo Henrique Chiovato AbdalaDepartment of Orthopedic E Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7097-0844
João Pedro Almeida E OliveiraDepartment of Orthopedic E Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9733-9398
Mariana Demétrio de Sousa PontesDepartment of Orthopedic E Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil. marianadpontes@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5962-1467
Ângelo Augusto Bongiolo GaneoDepartment of Orthopedic E Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7298-6302
Marcelo Henrique Nogueira-BarbosaDepartment of Medical Imaging, Hematology and Clinical Oncology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7436-5315
Carlos Fernando P S HerreroDepartment of Orthopedic E Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3387-4797

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo conduct an independent assessment of inter- and intraobserver agreement for the META score as a tool for differentiating osteoporotic vertebral fractures and multiple myeloma vertebral fractures.

methodsThis is a retrospective observational study. The magnetic resonance imaging analysis was made by two independent spinal surgeons. We designated a Subjective assessment, in which the surgeon should establish a diagnostic classification for each vertebral fracture based on personal experience: secondary to osteoporosis, categorized as a benign vertebral fracture (BVF), or attributed to multiple myeloma, categorized a malign vertebral fracture (MVF). After a 90-day interval, both surgeons repeated the evaluations. For the next step, the observers should establish a diagnosis between BVF and MVF according to the META score system, and both observers repeated the evaluations after a 90-day interval. The intra and interobserver reliability of the Subjective evaluation was studied using the kappa (κ) test. Then, the META evaluations were paralleled using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

resultsA total of 220 patients who had the potential to participate in the study were initially enrolled, but after applying the exclusion criteria, 44 patients were included. Thirty-three patients had BVF, and 12 patients presented MVF. Interobserver agreement for both Subjective evaluations moments (initial and 90-days interval) found a slight agreement for both moments (0.35 and 0.40 respectively). Kappa test for both META evaluations moments (initial and 90-days interval) found a moderate interobserver agreement for both moments (0.54 and 0.48 respectively). It was observed that the ICC calculated for the Initial evaluation using META score was 0.680 and that in the 90-days interval was 0.726, indicating regular to good agreement. Kappa test for intraobserver agreements for the Subjective evaluation presented moderate agreement for both Surgeons. On the other side, Kappa test for intraobserver agreements for the META evaluation presented substantial agreement for both Surgeons. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient of the META score found presented an almost perfect agreement for both Surgeons.

conclusionIntra and interobserver agreement for both surgeons were unsatisfactory. The lack of consistent reproducibility by the same observer discourages and disfavors the routine use of the META score in clinical decision making, when potentially cases of multiple myeloma may be present.

Indexed as

Multiple MyelomaObserver VariationOsteoporotic FracturesSpinal FracturesAgedAged, 80 and overDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSpinal diseasesSpinal fracturesSpinal neoplasmsSpine

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.