Diagnostic Accuracy of Lumbosacral Spine Magnetic Resonance Image Reading by Chiropractors, Chiropractic Radiologists, and Medical Radiologists

被引:2
作者
de Zoete, Annemarie [1 ,2 ]
Ostelo, Raymond [3 ,4 ]
Knol, Dirk L. [3 ]
Algra, Paul R. [5 ]
Wilmink, Jan T. [6 ]
van Tulder, Maurits W. [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Med Ctr Amsterdam, Fac Earth & Life Sci, Dept Hlth Sci, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] VU Univ Med Ctr Amsterdam, EMGO Inst Hlth & Care Res, Fac Earth & Life Sci, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] VU Univ Med Ctr Amsterdam, EMGO Inst Hlth & Care Res, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[4] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Fac Earth & Life Sci, Dept Hlth Sci, NL-1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
[5] Med Ctr, Alkmaar, Netherlands
[6] MRI Ctr, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[7] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Med Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
radiologist; chiropractic; MRI; reliability; validity; lumbar disc herniation; spinal stenosis; LOW-BACK-PAIN; LUMBAR SPINE; DISK HERNIATION; MRI EVALUATION; RELIABILITY; CLASSIFICATION; ABNORMALITIES; RADIOGRAPHS; SPECIFICITY; SENSITIVITY;
D O I
10.1097/BRS.0000000000000896
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design. A cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in 2 sessions. Objective. It is important to know whether it is possible to accurately detect "specific findings" on lumbosacral magnetic resonance (MR) images and whether the results of different observers are comparable. Summary of Background Data. Health care providers frequently use magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnostic process of patients with low back pain. The use of MR scans is increasing. This leads to an increase in costs and to an increase in risk of inaccurately labeling patients with an anatomical diagnosis that might not be the actual cause of symptoms. Methods. A set of 300 blinded MR images was read by medical radiologists, chiropractors, and chiropractic radiologists in 2 sessions. Each assessor read 100 scans in round 1 and 50 scans in round 2. The reference test was an expert panel. For all analyses, the magnetic resonance imaging findings were dichotomized into "specific findings" or "no specific findings." For the agreement, percentage agreement and kappa values were calculated and for validity, sensitivity, and specificity. Sensitivity analysis was done for classifications A and B (prevalence of 31% and 57%, respectively). Results. The intraobserver kappa values for chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists were 0.46, 0.49, and 0.69 for A and 0.55, 0.75, and 0.64 for B, respectively. The interobserver kappa values were lowest for chiropractors (0.28 for A, 0.37 for B) and highest for chiropractic radiologists (0.50 for A, 0.49 for B). The sensitivities of the medical radiologists, chiropractors, and chiropractic radiologists were 0.62, 0.71, and 0.75 for A and 0.70, 0.74, 0.84 for B, respectively. The specificities of medical radiologists, chiropractic radiologists, and chiropractors were 0.82, 0.77, and 0.70 for A and 0.74, 0.52, and 0.61 for B, respectively. Conclusion. Agreement and validity of MR image readings of chiropractors and chiropractic and medical radiologists is modest at best. This study supports recommendations in clinical guidelines against routine use of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with low back pain.
引用
收藏
页码:E653 / E660
页数:8
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]   Chapter 4 - European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain [J].
Airaksinen, O. ;
Brox, J. I. ;
Cedraschi, C. ;
Hildebrandt, J. ;
Klaber-Moffett, J. ;
Kovacs, F. ;
Mannion, A. F. ;
Reis, S. ;
Staal, J. B. ;
Ursin, H. ;
Zanoli, G. .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2006, 15 (Suppl 2) :S192-S300
[2]   ABNORMAL MAGNETIC-RESONANCE SCANS OF THE LUMBAR SPINE IN ASYMPTOMATIC SUBJECTS - A PROSPECTIVE INVESTIGATION [J].
BODEN, SD ;
DAVIS, DO ;
DINA, TS ;
PATRONAS, NJ ;
WIESEL, SW .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 1990, 72A (03) :403-408
[3]  
Brenner H, 1997, STAT MED, V16, P981, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970515)16:9<981::AID-SIM510>3.0.CO
[4]  
2-N
[5]   Diagnostic imaging practice guidelines for musculoskeletal complaints in adults -: An evidence-based approach -: Part 3:: Spinal disorders [J].
Bussieres, Andre E. ;
Taylor, John A. M. ;
Peterson, Cynthia .
JOURNAL OF MANIPULATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2008, 31 (01) :33-88
[6]   Lumbar Spine: Reliability of MR Imaging Findings [J].
Carrino, John A. ;
Lurie, Jon D. ;
Tosteson, Anna N. A. ;
Tosteson, Tor D. ;
Carragee, Eugene J. ;
Kaiser, Jay ;
Grove, Margaret R. ;
Blood, Emily ;
Pearson, Loretta H. ;
Weinstein, James N. ;
Herzog, Richard .
RADIOLOGY, 2009, 250 (01) :161-170
[7]   Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: A joint clinical practice guideline from the American college of physicians and the American pain society [J].
Chou, Roger ;
Qaseem, Amir ;
Snow, Vincenza ;
Casey, Donald ;
Cross, J. Thomas, Jr. ;
Shekelle, Paul ;
Owens, Douglas K. .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2007, 147 (07) :478-491
[8]   Appropriate Use of Lumbar Imaging for Evaluation of Low Back Pain [J].
Chou, Roger ;
Deyo, Richard A. ;
Jarvik, Jeffrey G. .
RADIOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2012, 50 (04) :569-+
[9]   Imaging strategies for low-back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Chou, Roger ;
Fu, Rongwei ;
Carrino, John A. ;
Deyo, Richard A. .
LANCET, 2009, 373 (9662) :463-472
[10]   METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
DERSIMONIAN, R ;
LAIRD, N .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03) :177-188