Logo image
Posterior disk displacement: Morphologic assessment and measurement reliability - lumbar spine
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Posterior disk displacement: Morphologic assessment and measurement reliability - lumbar spine

J.R. Cooley, C.D. Danielson, G.D. Schultz and T.A. Hall
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Vol.24(5), pp.317-326
2001
url
Link to Published Version *Subscription may be requiredView

Abstract

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging is often used to assess for disk displacement after manipulation, but limited information about the true incidence of iatrogenic herniations exists. To design a study that evaluates for a causal relationship, preliminary data must be obtained relating to the size of different types of disk displacement. The reliability of chiropractic radiologists in assessing disks and a comparison of different measuring devices should also be evaluated. Objective: To identify average measurements for normal and displaced disks and to assess the reliability of measurements by chiropractic radiologists. Study Design: Intraobserver and interobserver reliability study assessing disk displacement on magnetic resonance scans. Methods: Three evaluators assessed the disks on 122 magnetic resonance scans from two imaging centers. Six categories were graded, and digitizer and ruler measurements were compared. Forty-four scans were reassessed for intraobserver agreement. Intraobserver and interobserver variations were measured with intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa statistical analysis. Measurement device correlation was assessed with Pearson's r. Results: Clear size differences between different types of disk displacement were noted. Interexaminer measurement reliability was 0.78 to 0.84. Agreement concerning the presence of disk displacement was 85% (κ = 0.68), and the classification of disk displacements was 76% (κ = 0.60). Intraexaminer measurement reliability was 0.40 to 0.49. Intraexaminer agreement concerning the presence of disk displacement was 76% (κ = 0.52), and the classification of disk displacements was 62% to 69% (κ = 0.38 to 0.46). Normal versus bulged disk distinctions demonstrated the most disagreement. The ruler and digitizer correlation coefficient was 0.968. Conclusions: Different disk types demonstrated distinct size averages. Interexaminer agreement was good concerning disk assessment and measurements. Intraexaminer agreement was lower than expected. A millimetric ruler is an acceptable alternative to digital measurement devices.

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

Source: InCites

Metrics

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Citation topics
1 Clinical & Life Sciences
1.129 Back pain
1.129.175 Spinal Disorders
Web Of Science research areas
Health Care Sciences & Services
Integrative & Complementary Medicine
Rehabilitation
ESI research areas
Clinical Medicine
Logo image