4.7 Article

Consensus conference on core radiological parameters to describe lumbar stenosis - an initiative for structured reporting

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 24, 期 12, 页码 3224-3232

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3346-z

关键词

Low back pain; Lumbar spine; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Structured reporting

资金

  1. Horten Center, Zurich

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To define radiological criteria and parameters as a minimum standard in a structured radiological report for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and to identify criteria and parameters for research purposes. All available radiological criteria and parameters for LSS were identified using systematic literature reviews and a Delphi survey. We invited to the consensus meeting, and provided data, to 15 internationally renowned experts from different countries. During the meeting, these experts reached consensus in a structured and systematic discussion about a core list of radiological criteria and parameters for standard reporting. We identified a total of 27 radiological criteria and parameters for LSS. During the meeting, the experts identified five of these as core items for a structured report. For central stenosis, these were compromise of the central zone and relation between fluid and cauda equina. For lateral stenosis, the group agreed that nerve root compression in the lateral recess was a core item. For foraminal stenosis, we included nerve root impingement and compromise of the foraminal zone. As a minimum standard, five radiological criteria should be used in a structured radiological report in LSS. Other parameters are well suited for research. aEuro cent The five most important radiological criteria for standard clinical reporting were selected aEuro cent The five most important quantitative radiological parameters for research purposes were selected aEuro cent These core criteria could help standardize the communication between health care providers.

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

4.7
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