ArticleBrain & spine2026
Assessing cervical intervertebral disc height on MRI and X-ray versus CT; a single center retrospective cohort study.
Article in Brain & spine, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cervical intervertebral disc height is often used to score cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD) and can also aid in pre-operative surgical planning. For this purpose, MRI and X-ray imaging are routinely used. However, the reliability and agreement with computed tomography (CT), the gold standard for linear measurements, remain unknown. Research question: To assess the reliability and agreement of intervertebral disc height measurements between MRI, X-ray, and CT. Material and methods: Data was collected from all patients that received an MRI, X-ray, and CT within a timeframe of 6 months at Zuyderland Medical Center (ZMC) between 2014 and 2024. Mid, anterior, and posterior cervical intervertebral disc heights were measured from C2-C3 to C6-C7 in all three imaging modalities. 120 patients were included. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for the inter- and intraobserver reliability. A linear mixed model with Bonferroni correction was used to compare outcomes. Results: ICCs ranged from moderate to excellent for X-ray. ICCs ranged from good to excellent for MRI and CT after sensitivity analysis for equal slice selection. Mean difference in disc height was .1 mm (p = 0.163) between MRI and X-ray, 1.3 mm (p < 0.001) between MRI and CT, and 1.3 mm (p < 0.001) between X-ray and CT. Discussion and conclusion: MRI and X-ray exhibit a systematic bias in the measurement of cervical intervertebral disc height when compared to CT. CT should be considered for the assessment of disc height. The mid-disc measurement is recommended to ensure high reliability.
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.