ArticleSkeletal radiology2025
Diagnostic value of a coronal STIR sequence in conjoined lumbar nerve root detection: an MRI accuracy study.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Role of Electrophysiological Workup in Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis (LSCS): A Systematic Review.Spine · 2026Pooled it
- Efficient and complete fat suppression in two-point Dixon MR imaging: sequence considerations and assessment in lumbar plexus imaging.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Critical dialogue: how imaging evaluates and guides pelvic exenteration surgery-a multidisciplinary perspective.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
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
objectivesTo assess diagnostic accuracy for conjoined lumbosacral nerve root (CLNR) detection on MRI when adding a coronal STIR sequence to the standard lumbar spine protocol. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, two radiologists assessed the presence of CLNR and lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV), using a standard lumbar MRI protocol and an expanded protocol with an additional coronal STIR sequence. Prior radiologist consensus using the expanded protocol served as a reference standard for diagnosis.
resultsIn 751 patients (mean age 61.2 ± 15.7 years, 435 females), CLNR was found in 38 patients (5.1%) in consensus. Without coronal STIR, 13 CLNR patients were correctly identified, CLNR was missed in 25 patients, and 3 patients were falsely detected as having one (sensitivity of 34.2%, specificity of 99.6%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 81.3%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.6%, and accuracy of 96.3%). With coronal STIR, 31 CLNR patients were correctly identified, CLNR were missed in 7 patients, and one patient was falsely detected as having one (sensitivity of 81.6%, specificity of 99.9%, PPV of 96.9%, NPV of 99.0%, and accuracy of 98.9%). Inter-reader agreement improved from moderate without coronal STIR (κ = 0.592; 95% CI 0.38, 0.80) to almost perfect with coronal STIR (κ = 0.915; 95% CI 0.84, 0.99). LSTV had a prevalence of 13.3% among patients without and 26.3% among patients with CLNR (p = 0.025).
conclusionCoronal STIR greatly improved sensitivity and inter-reader agreement for CLNR detection on MRI while slightly improving the specificity and accuracy. A significant association of CLNR and LSTV was found.
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.