Lumbar Spine: Agreement in the Interpretation of 1.5-T MR Images by Using the Nordic Modic Consensus Group Classification Form

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09090706

In conditions close to those of clinical practice, there was only moderate interobserver agreement in the reporting of findings at 1.5-T lumbar MR imaging

Purpose

To evaluate intra- and interobserver agreement for the interpretation of lumbar 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) images in a community setting.

Materials and Methods

The study design was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Ramón y Cajal Hospital. According to Spanish law, for this type of study, no informed consent was necessary. Five radiologists from three hospitals twice interpreted lumbar MR examination results in 53 patients with low back pain, with at least a 14-day interval between assessments. Radiologists were unaware of the clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients and of their colleagues’ assessments. At the second assessment, they were unaware of the results of the first assessment. Reports on Modic changes, osteophytes, Schmorl nodes, diffuse defects, disk degeneration, annular tears (high-signal-intensity zones), disk contour, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis were collected by using the Spanish version of the Nordic Modic Consensus Group classification. The κ statistic was used to assess intra- and interobserver agreement for findings with a prevalence of 10% or greater and 90% or lower. κ was categorized as almost perfect (0.81–1.00), substantial (0.61–0.80), moderate (0.41–0.60), fair (0.21–0.40), slight (0.00–0.20), or poor (<0.00).

Results

Endplate erosions and spondylolisthesis were observed in less than 10% of images. Intraobserver reliability was almost perfect for spinal stenosis; substantial for Modic changes, Schmorl nodes, disk degeneration, annular tears, and disk contour; and moderate for osteophytes. Interobserver reliability was moderate for Modic changes, Schmorl nodes, disk degeneration, annular tears, and disk contour; fair for osteophytes; and poor for spinal stenosis.

Conclusion

In conditions close to those of clinical practice, there was only moderate interobserver agreement in the reporting of findings at 1.5-T lumbar MR imaging.

© RSNA, 2010

Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.09090706/-/DC1

References

  • 1 Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, et al.. Chapter 4 European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J 2006;15(suppl 2):S192–S300. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hollingworth W, Gray DT, Martin BI, Sullivan SD, Deyo RA, Jarvik JG. Rapid magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing cancer-related low back pain. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18(4):303–312. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Brant-Zawadzki MN, Jensen MC, Obuchowski N, Ross JS, Modic MT. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in interpretation of lumbar disc abnormalities: a comparison of two nomenclatures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20(11):1257–1263. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cihangiroglu M, Yildirim H, Bozgeyik Z, et al.. Observer variability based on the strength of MR scanners in the assessment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. Eur J Radiol 2004;51(3):202–208. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Griffith JF, Wang YX, Antonio GE, et al.. Modified Pfirrmann grading system for lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32(24):E708–E712. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jensen TS, Sorensen JS, Kjaer P. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of vertebral endplate signal (modic) changes in the lumbar spine: the Nordic Modic Consensus Group classification. Acta Radiol 2007;48(7):748–754. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jones A, Clarke A, Freeman BJ, Lam KS, Grevitt MP. The Modic classification: inter- and intraobserver error in clinical practice. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30(16):1867–1869. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Milette PC, Fontaine S, Lepanto L, Cardinal E, Breton G. Differentiating lumbar disc protrusions, disc bulges, and discs with normal contour but abnormal signal intensity: magnetic resonance imaging with discographic correlations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24(1):44–53. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mulconrey DS, Knight RQ, Bramble JD, Paknikar S, Harty PA. Interobserver reliability in the interpretation of diagnostic lumbar MRI and nuclear imaging. Spine J 2006;6(2):177–184. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Peterson CK, Gatterman B, Carter JC, Humphreys BK, Weibel A. Inter- and intraexaminer reliability in identifying and classifying degenerative marrow (Modic) changes on lumbar spine magnetic resonance scans. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2007;30(2):85–90. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26(17):1873–1878. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Raininko R, Manninen H, Battié MC, Gibbons LE, Gill K, Fisher LD. Observer variability in the assessment of disc degeneration on magnetic resonance images of the lumbar and thoracic spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20(9):1029–1035. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Smith BM, Hurwitz EL, Solsberg D, et al.. Interobserver reliability of detecting lumbar intervertebral disc high-intensity zone on magnetic resonance imaging and association of high-intensity zone with pain and anular disruption. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23(19):2074–2080. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Solgaard Sorensen J, Kjaer P, Jensen ST, Andersen P. Low-field magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine: reliability of qualitative evaluation of disc and muscle parameters. Acta Radiol 2006;47(9):947–953. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Speciale AC, Pietrobon R, Urban CW, et al.. Observer variability in assessing lumbar spinal stenosis severity on magnetic resonance imaging and its relation to cross-sectional spinal canal area. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27(10):1082–1086. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 van Rijn JC, Klemetsö N, Reitsma JB, et al.. Observer variation in MRI evaluation of patients suspected of lumbar disk herniation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184(1):299–303. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Spinal radiographic findings and nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review of observational studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22(4):427–434. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Carrino JA, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, et al.. Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings. Radiology 2009;250(1):161–170. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kovacs FM, Royuela A, Jensen TS, et al.. Agreement in the interpretation of magnetic resonance images of the lumbar spine. Acta Radiol 2009;50(5):497–506. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lurie JD, Doman DM, Spratt KF, Tosteson AN, Weinstein JN. Magnetic resonance imaging interpretation in patients with symptomatic lumbar spine disc herniations: comparison of clinician and radiologist readings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34(7):701–705. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, et al.. Reliability of readings of magnetic resonance imaging features of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33(14):1605–1610. [Published correction appears in Spine 2008;33(22):2482.]. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jarvik JG, Deyo RA. Moderate versus mediocre: the reliability of spine MR data interpretations. Radiology 2009;250(1):15–17. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Benoist M. The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the “medical” articles in the European Spine Journal, 2008. Eur Spine J 2009;18(1):1–12. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Carter JR. Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology 1988;166(1 pt 1):193–199. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Arnoldi CC, Brodsky AE, Cauchoix J, et al.. Lumbar spinal stenosis and nerve root entrapment syndromes: definition and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976;(115):4–5. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. MR imaging of the lumbar spine: prevalence of intervertebral disk extrusion and sequestration, nerve root compression, end plate abnormalities, and osteoarthritis of the facet joints in asymptomatic volunteers. Radiology 1998;209(3):661–666. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159–174. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lipsitz SR, Parzen M, Fitzmaurize GM, Klar N. A two-stage logistic regression model for analyzing inter-rater agreement. Psychometrika 2003;68(2):289–298. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hardin JW, Hilbe JM. Generalized estimating equations Boca Raton, Fla: Chapman & Hall, 2003. Google Scholar
  • 30 Brorson S, Hróbjartsson A. Training improves agreement among doctors using the Neer system for proximal humeral fractures in a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61(1):7–16. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Modic MT, Ross JS. Lumbar degenerative disk disease. Radiology 2007;245(1):43–61. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa. I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43(6):543–549. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received May 14, 2009; revision requested July 2; revision received August 17; accepted August 28; final version accepted September 16.
Published online: Feb 8 2010
Published in print: Mar 2010