"skipMainNavigation"
closeDrawerMenuopenDrawerMenu
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
  • Information
    • Previous
    Next
    Original Research

    Radiologic Criteria for the Diagnosis of Spinal Stenosis: Results of a Delphi Survey

    Published Online:Jul 1 2012https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111930

    Abstract

    The results of this survey suggest that there are no broadly accepted quantitative criteria and only partially accepted qualitative criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis.

    Purpose

    To develop a list of radiologic criteria for describing lumbar spinal stenosis, to learn from experts which parameters they consider to be most important, and to assess the strength of agreement among experts on the most relevant criteria.

    Materials and Methods

    An expert panel of 41 radiologists (musculoskeletal experts and neuroradiologists from Europe and the United States) was formed. A three-round Delphi survey was conducted. Twenty-seven of the 41 nominated experts agreed to participate; 21 completed all three rounds. In the first round, experts were asked to complete a list of suggested parameters and cutoff values to describe lumbar spinal stenosis. In the second round, panelists rated the diagnostic relevance of each parameter (visual analog scale, 0–10). In the third round, panelists were provided with the group results (median and range) and their own answers and had the opportunity to adapt their judgments from round 2. To assess the degree of consensus among experts, the Cronbach α was calculated.

    Results

    The qualitative criteria disk protrusion and perineural intraforaminal fat were rated as the most important diagnostic indicators, with median scores of 9 (range, 2–10). The highest rated quantitative criterion was the anteroposterior diameter of the osseous canal, with a median score of 8; however, there was a wide range of scores (range, 0–10). The median Cronbach α of all panelists within the group was 0.81 after the third round.

    Conclusion

    Results of the survey suggest that there are no broadly accepted quantitative criteria and only partially accepted qualitative criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. The latter include disk protrusion, lack of perineural intraforaminal fat, hypertrophic facet joint degeneration, absent fluid around the cauda equine, and hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum.

    © RSNA, 2012

    Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12111930/-/DC1

    References

    • 1 Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Mirza S, Martin BI. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine 2005;30(12):1441–1445; discussion 1446–1447. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 2 Haig AJ, Tomkins CC. Diagnosis and management of lumbar spinal stenosis. JAMA 2010;303(1):71–72. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 3 Suri P, Rainville J, Kalichman L, Katz JN. Does this older adult with lower extremity pain have the clinical syndrome of lumbar spinal stenosis? JAMA 2010;304(23):2628–2636. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 4 Katz JN, Harris MB. Clinical practice: lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008;358(8):818–825. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 5 North American Spine Society. Evidence based clinical guidelines for multidisciplinary spine care: diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Burr Ridge, Ill: North American Spine Society, 2007. Google Scholar
    • 6 Genevay S, Atlas SJ, Katz JN. Variation in eligibility criteria from studies of radiculopathy due to a herniated disc and of neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis: a structured literature review. Spine 2010;35(7):803–811. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 7 Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet 2005;365(9453):82–93. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 8 Steurer J, Roner S, Gnannt R, Hodler J. Quantitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011;12:175. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 9 Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manage Sci 1963;9(3):458–467. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 10 Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 1984;74(9):979–983. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 11 Graham B, Regehr G, Wright JG. Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56(12):1150–1156. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 12 Milholland AV, Wheeler SG, Heieck JJ. Medical assessment by a Delphi group opinion technic. N Engl J Med 1973;288(24):1272–1275. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 13 Dalkey N. The Delphi method: an experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica, Calif: Rand, 1969. Google Scholar
    • 14 Fisher R, Katz J. Social-desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. Psychol Mark 2000;17(2):105–120. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 15 Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86(2):420–428. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 16 Bland JM, Altman DG. Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 1997;314(7080):572–573. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar

    Article History

    Received September 9, 2011; revision requested October 26; revision received January 30, 2012; accepted February 7; final version accepted February 14.
    Published online: July 2012
    Published in print: July 2012