ArticleBMC medical imaging2024
CT-based surrogate parameters for MRI-based disc height and endplate degeneration in the lumbar spine.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2024. 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.
- Clinical Application of Deep Learning for Spine MRI Interpretation: A Multicenter Evaluation of Artificial-Intelligence-Assisted versus Manual Reading on Diagnostic Agreement with the Reference Standard.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Assessing cervical intervertebral disc height on MRI and X-ray versus CT; a single center retrospective cohort study.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Decompression only versus decompression plus fusion for spinal canal stenosis of adjacent segment during primary single-segment lumbar fusion surgery.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 · 2025Article
- [Biomechanical study of lumbar vertebra during gait cycle in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated potential use of computed tomography (CT)-based parameters in the lumbar spine as a surrogate for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based findings.
methodsIn this retrospective study, all individuals, who had a lumbar spine CT scan and MRI between 2006 and 2012 were reviewed (n = 198). Disc height (DH) and endplate degeneration (ED) were evaluated between Th12/L1-L5/S1. Statistics consisted of Spearman correlation and univariate/multivariable regression (adjusting for age and gender).
resultsThe mean CT-DH increased kranio-caudally (8.04 millimeters (mm) at T12/L1, 9.17 mm at L1/2, 10.59 mm at L2/3, 11.34 mm at L3/4, 11.42 mm at L4/5 and 10.47 mm at L5/S1). MRI-ED was observed in 58 (29%) individuals. CT-DH and MRI-DH had strong to very strong correlations (rho 0.781-0.904, p < .001). MRI-DH showed higher absolute values than CT-DH (mean of 1.76 mm). There was a significant association between CT-DH and MRI-ED at L2/3 (p = .006), L3/4 (p = .002), L4/5 (p < .001) and L5/S1 (p < .001). A calculated cut-off point was set at 11 mm.
conclusionsIn the lumbar spine, there is a correlation between disc height on CT and MRI. This can be useful in trauma and emergency cases, where CT is readily available in the lack of an MRI. In addition, in the middle and lower part of the lumbar spine, loss of disc height on CT scans is associated with more pronounced endplate degeneration on MRIs. If the disc height on CT scans is lower than 11 mm, endplate degeneration on MRIs is likely more pronounced. LEVEL AND
designLevel III, a retrospective study.
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.