4.6 Article

Comparative evaluation of three semi-quantitative radiographic grading techniques for hip osteoarthritis in terms of validity and reproducibility in 1404 radiographs: report of the OARSI-OMERACT Task Force

Journal

OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 182-187

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2008.06.009

Keywords

Hip; Osteoarthritis; Progression; Radiography; Validity; Reproducibility; Kellgren-Lawrence; Joint space width

Funding

  1. OARSI
  2. OMERACT
  3. Pfizer
  4. Astra Zeneca
  5. Novartis
  6. Negma Lerads laboratories
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Association of Schools of Public Health [S043, S3486]
  8. National Institute of Arthritis
  9. Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Multipurpose Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disease Center [5-P60-AR30701]
  10. Multidisciplinary Clinical Research Center [5-P60-AR49465]
  11. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MT-12919]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objective of this work was to compare the measurement properties of three categorical X-ray scoring methods for hip osteoarthritis (CA). Methods: In data obtained from trials and cohorts, radiographs were evaluated using the Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) grading system, the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) joint space narrowing score, and quantitative measurement of joint space width (JSW), analysed as a categorical variable according to Croft and Lane's cutoffs (1.5, 2.5 and 3 mm). Predictive validity was assessed through logistic regression to predict joint replacement in one database. Construct validity was assessed through logistic regression between pain and function and X-ray stages. Inter-observer and intra-observer reliability were assessed in 50 subjects by weighted kappa. Sensitivity to change was assessed in 50 patients over a 24-month interval, by standardized response mean (SRM). Results: Radiographs were available from one trial and two cohorts (1404 X-rays). All three methods predicted joint replacement in the trial. Correlation with clinical parameters was low for the three scoring methods, except for the single community-based cohort. Interrater reliability was higher for categorical JSW (kappa, 0.71 vs 0.44 and 0.47 for KL and OARSI, respectively). Intrarater reliability was similar for the three methods (0.79 vs 0.69 and 0.81). Sensitivity to change was higher for categorical JSW than KL and OARSI (SRM, 0.77 vs 0.28 and 0.35). Conclusion: Categorical JSW has similar validity and higher sensitivity to change than the other categorical scoring techniques in hip OA. These results indicate categorical JSW may be the preferred method to evaluate structural severity in hip OA clinical trials. (C) 2008 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available