Reliability of zygapophysial joint space measurements made from magnetic resonance imaging scans of acute low back pain subjects: comparison of 2 statistical methods.
Reliability of zygapophysial joint space measurements made from magnetic resonance imaging scans of acute low back pain subjects: comparison of 2 statistical methods.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jmpt.2010.01.009
复制
发表时间：
2010-03
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
McKinnis RA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cramer GD;Cantu JA;Pocius JD;Cambron JA;McKinnis RA
本研究的目的是评估使用新设备和2种不同统计分析方法对急性腰痛（ALBP）受试者进行MRI扫描时关节突（Z）关节间隙测量的可靠性。如果发现可靠，Z关节测量的方法可以应用于在ALBP受试者的更大研究中进行脊柱操作之前和之后的扫描。3名观察员在间隔4周的两个不同场合测量了5次受试者扫描（20次数字化仪测量，四舍五入至0.1 mm）的左右L4/L5和L5/S1 Z关节间隙的中心前后距离。观察者对彼此和他们以前的工作不知情。使用Bland和Altman（1986）的方法，通过组内相关系数（ICC）和平均差计算观察者内和观察者间可靠性。<±0.4 mm的平均差异被认为是临床上可接受的。ICC显示观察者内可靠性为0.95（95%CI 0.87-0.98），0.83（0.62-0.92）和0.92（0.83-0.96）;第一次和第二次测量的观察者间可靠性分别为0.90（0.82-0.95）、0.79（0.61-0.90）和0.84（0.75-0.90），总体可靠性分别为0.90（0.82 - 0.95）和0.79（0.61 -0.90）。3名观察员的第一次和第二次测量值之间的平均差异分别为-0.04 mm（±1.96 SD= -0.37 - 0.29）、0.23（-0.48 - 0.94）、0.25（-0.24 - 0.75）和0.15（-0.44 - 0.74），总体一致。这两种统计方法被认为是有用的和互补的，并显示测量是高度可靠的。
This purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of measurements made of the zygapophysial (Z) joint space from the MRI scans of subjects with acute low back pain (ALBP) using new equipment and 2 different methods of statistical analysis. If found reliable, the methods of Z joint measurement can be applied to scans taken before and after spinal manipulation in a larger study of ALBP subjects. Three observers measured the central anterior-to-posterior distance of the left and right L4/L5 and L5/S1 Z joint space from 5 subject scans (20 digitizer measurements, rounded to 0.1mm) on two separate occasions separated by 4 weeks. Observers were blinded to each other and their previous work. Intra- and interobserver reliability was calculated by means of intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and also by mean differences using the methods of Bland and Altman (1986). A mean difference of <±0.4 mm was considered clinically acceptable. ICCs showed intraobserver reliabilities of 0.95 (95%CI 0.87-0.98), 0.83 (0.62-0.92), and 0.92 (0.83-0.96) for each of the 3 observers; and interobserver reliabilities of 0.90 (0.82-0.95), 0.79 (0.61-0.90), and 0.84 (0.75-0.90) for the first and second measurements and overall reliability, respectively. The mean difference between the first and second measurements was -0.04 mm (±1.96 SD= -0.37 – 0.29), 0.23 (-0.48 – 0.94), 0.25 (-0.24 – 0.75), and 0.15 (-0.44 – 0.74) for each of the 3 observers and the overall agreement, respectively. Both statistical methods were found to be useful and complementary and showed the measurements to be highly reliable.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1191/1740774504cn057oa
发表时间：
2004-01-01
期刊：
Clinical trials (London, England)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Lachin, John M
通讯作者：
Lachin, John M
影响因子：
3
作者：
Cramer, GD;Gregerson, DM;Cantu, JA
通讯作者：
Cantu, JA
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
HARTMANN, DP
通讯作者：
HARTMANN, DP
DOI：
10.1136/jamia.1999.0060143
发表时间：
1999-03-01
影响因子：
6.4
作者：
Hripcsak, G;Kuperman, GJ;Heitjan, DF
通讯作者：
Heitjan, DF
影响因子：
22.4
作者：
SHROUT, PE;FLEISS, JL
通讯作者：
FLEISS, JL