4.5 Article

An inter- and intra-rater agreement assessment of a novel classification of pyogenic spinal infections

Journal

EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL
Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 448-453

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-021-07077-8

Keywords

Agreement study; Pyogenic spinal infections; Spondylodiscitis; Neurological involvement; Vertebral osteomyelitis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluated the agreement of a clinical-radiological classification of pyogenic spinal infections proposed by Pola et al. The results showed substantial agreement among evaluators and moderate agreement within the same evaluator in terms of the main categories, but only moderate agreement in terms of the subtypes.
Purpose Pola et al. described a clinical-radiological classification of pyogenic spinal infections (PSI) based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features including vertebral destruction, soft tissue involvement, and epidural abscess, along with the neurological status. We performed an inter- and intra-observer agreement evaluation of this classification. Methods Complete MRI studies of 80 patients with PSI were selected and classified using the scheme described by Pola et al. by seven evaluators. After a four-week interval, all cases were presented to the same assessors in a random sequence for repeat assessment. We used the weighted kappa statistics (w kappa) to establish the inter- and intra-observer agreement. Results The inter-observer agreement was substantial considering the main categories (w kappa = 0.77; 0.71-0.82), but moderate considering the subtypes (w kappa = 0.51; 0.45-0.58). The intra-observer agreement was substantial considering the main types (w kappa = 0.65; 0.59-0.71), and moderate considering the subtypes (w kappa = 0.58; 0.54-0.63). Conclusion The agreement at the main type level indicates that this classification allows adequate communication and may be used in clinical practice; at the subtypes level, the agreement is only moderate.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available