ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025
Scan/rescan reliability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Article 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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used to estimate the geometric dimensions of lower lumbar vertebrae. While MRI-based measurements have demonstrated good reliability with interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of 0.80 or higher, many evaluations focus solely on the comparison of identical MRI images. This approach primarily reflects analyst dexterity and does not assess the reliability of the entire process, including imaging and image selection.
objectiveTo evaluate the inter- and intra-rater reliability of the entire process of using MRI to measure biomechanically relevant lumbar spinal characteristics, incorporating imaging, image selection, and analysis.
methodsA dataset of 144 low-back MRI scans was analyzed. Reliability assessments were performed under different conditions: (1) identical scans rated by the same analyst at different times (intra-rater reliability) and (2) distinct scans of the same subject obtained by different MRI operators and analyzed by different analysts (inter-rater reliability). Mean absolute differences in measurements were calculated, and sources of variability, such as breathing artifacts, were noted.
resultsLarger discrepancies were observed when comparing distinct scans analyzed by different MRI operators and analysts. In the "worst-case" scenario, where both the MRI operator and analyst differed, a 4.05% mean absolute difference was noted for anterior endplate measurements. This was higher than the 2.76% difference observed when analysts re-rated their own scans after one month. Despite these discrepancies, the variability in measurements was relatively low and primarily attributed to factors like breathing artifacts.
conclusionThe process of using MRI to derive biomechanical measures, particularly for bony structures, demonstrates robust reliability. Variability in measurements is minimal even under challenging conditions, supporting the use of MRI for biomechanical assessments.
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.