ArticleActa neurochirurgica2025
Reliability of surgeon-reported MRI findings to a national spine register.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity and accuracy of swespine data on surgery for central lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar disc herniation: a cohort study of 796 patients.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
- Diagnostic reliability of the FinSpine nationwide spine surgery registry: Comparison between clinical registry diagnoses and blinded imaging assessments.Brain & spine · 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
purposeSpine registries contribute to valuable knowledge and research; however, the data quality has been questioned. MRI findings are crucial for diagnostics and grading of degenerative spinal disorders. We aimed to explore the reliability of surgeon-reported MRI findings in a national spine registry (NORspine).
methodsWe assessed the reliability of MRI findings from three spine centres. Two spine surgeons re-examined previously surgeon-reported MRI findings for a sample of NORspine patients. We assessed the inter-rater reliability and the reliability between the NORspine registry and each study rater by Cohen's Kappa (ƙ).
resultsTwo spine surgeons reassessed preoperative MRI of the lumbar spine for 276 previously enrolled NORspine patients; 92 at each treating centre equally distributed by three categories of spinal procedures: removal of disc herniation (LDH), decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), and lumbar fusion. The inter-rater reliability varied from fair (0.21) to substantial (0.75) (most reliable for detecting LDH and LSS). The reliability between the NORspine registry and each rater varied from slight (0.13) to substantial (0.75). The highest reliability was found for LDH and LSS (ƙ = 0.72-0.75), while degenerative disc (DDD), foraminal stenosis (FS) and Modic changes had lower reliability (ƙ = 0.27-0.49).
conclusionThe reliability for surgeon-reported MRI diagnostics to the NORspine registry varied and was substantial for LDH and LSS, moderate for DDD and FS, and slight or fair for Modic changes.
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.