Babel 2.0

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09092250

Degenerative disk disease nomenclature remains fragmented.

References

  • 1 Carrino JA, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, et al.. Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings. Radiology 2009;250(1):161–170. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2 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
  • 3 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
  • 4 Arana E, Royuela A, Kovacs FM, et al.. Lumbar spine: agreement in the interpretation of 1.5-T MR images by using the Nordic Modic Consensus Group classification form. Radiology 2010;254(3):809–817. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Jarvik JG, Deyo RA. Moderate versus mediocre: the reliability of spine MR data interpretations. Radiology 2009;250(1):15–17. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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; discussion 1264. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fardon D, Pinkerton S, Balderston R, Garfin S, Nasca R, Salib R. Terms used for diagnosis by English speaking spine surgeons. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18(2):274–277. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received November 27, 2009; revision requested December 7; revision received December 9; final version accepted December 9.
Published online: Feb 8 2010
Published in print: Mar 2010