X 射线和核磁共振成像膝关节屈曲角度测量的评分者之间和评分者内部的可靠性。

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Annals of Joint Pub Date : 2022-10-15 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.21037/aoj-22-2
Harry Kyle Campbell Summers, Stephen Picken, Oday Al-Dadah
{"title":"X 射线和核磁共振成像膝关节屈曲角度测量的评分者之间和评分者内部的可靠性。","authors":"Harry Kyle Campbell Summers, Stephen Picken, Oday Al-Dadah","doi":"10.21037/aoj-22-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Range of motion (ROM) is an important aspect of orthopaedic patient assessment. It can be measured at the knee joint by determining the knee flexion angle (KFA) a patient can achieve at extremes of flexion and extension. As with any measurement, the accuracy and reliability of the method used determine its validity. The consistency of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans as compared to the current gold standard of X-ray remains unknown in terms of KFA evaluation. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the reliability of measuring KFA between X-ray and MRI scans.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included 80 patients (94 knees) who had attended a specialist knee clinic due to varying knee pathologies and undergone both X-ray and MRI scans. Lateral and T1-weighted sagittal imaging views (respectively) were used to measure KFA by two trained observers independently at two separate time points, 8 weeks apart. The data was then statistically analysed and intra- and inter-observer reliability calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intra-observer reliability for X-ray was 0.96 (P<0.001) and that for MRI was 0.83 (P<0.001). The inter-observer reliability for X-ray was 0.99 (P<0.001) and that for MRI was 0.81 (P<0.001). All the intra-class correlation coefficients were graded as excellent in both the intra- and inter-observer reliability analysis. Overall, the mean KFA was notably higher on X-ray measurements than that on MRI scans. There was a statistically significant difference between Time 1 and Time 2 measurements (17.7° <i>vs.</i> 16.8°) for MRI data (P=0.022). No significant difference was found for X-ray measurements (46.4° <i>vs.</i> 45.6°) in this regard (P=0.182).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both X-ray and MRI allow KFA to be measured with an excellent degree of reliability. However, X-ray measurements were overall superior to that of MRI mainly due to the larger field of view of the visible on-screen image which more readily identifies the anatomical landmarks required to measure KFA.</p>","PeriodicalId":44459,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Joint","volume":"7 ","pages":"34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10929294/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter- and intra-rater reliability of knee flexion angle measurements on X-ray and MRI.\",\"authors\":\"Harry Kyle Campbell Summers, Stephen Picken, Oday Al-Dadah\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/aoj-22-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Range of motion (ROM) is an important aspect of orthopaedic patient assessment. It can be measured at the knee joint by determining the knee flexion angle (KFA) a patient can achieve at extremes of flexion and extension. As with any measurement, the accuracy and reliability of the method used determine its validity. The consistency of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans as compared to the current gold standard of X-ray remains unknown in terms of KFA evaluation. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the reliability of measuring KFA between X-ray and MRI scans.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included 80 patients (94 knees) who had attended a specialist knee clinic due to varying knee pathologies and undergone both X-ray and MRI scans. Lateral and T1-weighted sagittal imaging views (respectively) were used to measure KFA by two trained observers independently at two separate time points, 8 weeks apart. The data was then statistically analysed and intra- and inter-observer reliability calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intra-observer reliability for X-ray was 0.96 (P<0.001) and that for MRI was 0.83 (P<0.001). The inter-observer reliability for X-ray was 0.99 (P<0.001) and that for MRI was 0.81 (P<0.001). All the intra-class correlation coefficients were graded as excellent in both the intra- and inter-observer reliability analysis. Overall, the mean KFA was notably higher on X-ray measurements than that on MRI scans. There was a statistically significant difference between Time 1 and Time 2 measurements (17.7° <i>vs.</i> 16.8°) for MRI data (P=0.022). No significant difference was found for X-ray measurements (46.4° <i>vs.</i> 45.6°) in this regard (P=0.182).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both X-ray and MRI allow KFA to be measured with an excellent degree of reliability. However, X-ray measurements were overall superior to that of MRI mainly due to the larger field of view of the visible on-screen image which more readily identifies the anatomical landmarks required to measure KFA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Joint\",\"volume\":\"7 \",\"pages\":\"34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10929294/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Joint\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/aoj-22-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Joint","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/aoj-22-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:活动范围(ROM)是骨科患者评估的一个重要方面。它可以通过确定患者在屈伸极限时所能达到的膝关节屈曲角(KFA)来测量膝关节的活动范围。与任何测量一样,所用方法的准确性和可靠性决定了其有效性。就 KFA 评估而言,磁共振成像(MRI)扫描与目前的黄金标准 X 光片相比,其一致性仍是未知数。本研究旨在评估和比较 X 光和核磁共振成像扫描测量 KFA 的可靠性:这项研究包括 80 名患者(94 个膝关节),他们因不同的膝关节病变前往膝关节专科门诊就诊,并接受了 X 光和核磁共振成像扫描。由两名训练有素的观察者分别在两个不同的时间点(相隔 8 周)测量侧位和 T1 加权矢状位成像视图(分别)的 KFA。然后对数据进行统计分析,并使用类内相关系数(ICC)计算观察者内部和观察者之间的可靠性:结果:X 射线的观察者内可靠性为 0.96(Pvs.16.8°),磁共振成像数据的观察者内可靠性为 0.96(P=0.022)。在这方面,X 光测量结果(46.4° 对 45.6°)无明显差异(P=0.182):结论:X 射线和磁共振成像都能以极高的可靠性测量 KFA。结论:X 射线和磁共振成像都能以极高的可靠性测量 KFA,但总体而言,X 射线测量优于磁共振成像测量,这主要是因为屏幕上可见图像的视野更大,更容易识别测量 KFA 所需的解剖标志。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Inter- and intra-rater reliability of knee flexion angle measurements on X-ray and MRI.

Background: Range of motion (ROM) is an important aspect of orthopaedic patient assessment. It can be measured at the knee joint by determining the knee flexion angle (KFA) a patient can achieve at extremes of flexion and extension. As with any measurement, the accuracy and reliability of the method used determine its validity. The consistency of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans as compared to the current gold standard of X-ray remains unknown in terms of KFA evaluation. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the reliability of measuring KFA between X-ray and MRI scans.

Methods: This study included 80 patients (94 knees) who had attended a specialist knee clinic due to varying knee pathologies and undergone both X-ray and MRI scans. Lateral and T1-weighted sagittal imaging views (respectively) were used to measure KFA by two trained observers independently at two separate time points, 8 weeks apart. The data was then statistically analysed and intra- and inter-observer reliability calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: The intra-observer reliability for X-ray was 0.96 (P<0.001) and that for MRI was 0.83 (P<0.001). The inter-observer reliability for X-ray was 0.99 (P<0.001) and that for MRI was 0.81 (P<0.001). All the intra-class correlation coefficients were graded as excellent in both the intra- and inter-observer reliability analysis. Overall, the mean KFA was notably higher on X-ray measurements than that on MRI scans. There was a statistically significant difference between Time 1 and Time 2 measurements (17.7° vs. 16.8°) for MRI data (P=0.022). No significant difference was found for X-ray measurements (46.4° vs. 45.6°) in this regard (P=0.182).

Conclusions: Both X-ray and MRI allow KFA to be measured with an excellent degree of reliability. However, X-ray measurements were overall superior to that of MRI mainly due to the larger field of view of the visible on-screen image which more readily identifies the anatomical landmarks required to measure KFA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Joint
Annals of Joint ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
-25.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
The role of anterolateral complex surgery and slope-reducing osteotomies in revision ACL reconstructions: a narrative review. Three- or four-part proximal humeral fractures in middle-aged and active elderly group of patients: a narrative review of treatment options. Weightlessness damaged the ultrastructure of knee cartilage and quadriceps muscle, aggravated the degeneration of cartilage. Diagnostic strategies for chronic lateral ankle instability: a narrative review. Bone loss in shoulder instability and shoulder arthroplasty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1