4.3 Review

Semi-quantitative grading and extended semi-quantitative grading for osteoporotic vertebral deformity: a radiographic image database for education and calibration

期刊

ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AME PUBL CO
DOI: 10.21037/atm.2020.02.23

关键词

Osteoporosis; osteoporotic vertebral deformity (OVD); osteoporotic vertebral fracture; spine; grading

资金

  1. ITF project of Hong Kong SAR [ITS/334/18]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Genant's semi- quantitative (GSQ) criteria is currently the most used approach in epidemiology studies and clinical trials for osteoporotic vertebral deformity (OVD) evaluation with radiograph. The qualitative diagnosis with radiological knowledge helps to minimize false positive readings. However, unless there is a face-to-face training with experienced readers, it can be difficult to apply GSQ criteria by only reading the text description of Genant et al. (in 1993), even for a musculoskeletal radiologist. We propose an expanded semi-quantitative (eSQ) OVD classification with the following features: (I) GSQ grade-0.5 is noted as minimal grade (eSQ grade-1) for OVDs with height loss <20%; (II) GSQ mild grade (grade-1) is the same as eSQ mild grade (grade-2); (III) GSQ moderate grade (grade-2) is subdivided into eSQ grade-3 (moderate, >25%-1/3 height loss) and eSQ grade-4 (moderately-severe, >1/3-40% height loss); (IV) GSQ severe grade is subdivided into eSQ grade-5 (severe, >40%-2/3 height loss) and eSQ grade-6 (collapsed, with >2/3 height loss). We advocate to estimate vertebral height loss with adjacent vertebral heights as the reference (rather than using individual vertebra's posterior height as the reference). This article presents radiographs of 36 cases with OVD, together with gradings using GSQ criteria and eSQ criteria. The examples in this article can serve as teaching material or calibration database for readers who will use GSQ criteria or eSQ criteria. Our approach for quantitative measurement is explained graphically.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据