Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of inter- and intra-observer reliability among the three classification systems for cervical spinal canal stenosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim is to analyze the agreement between different types of physicians in terms of the inter-observer and intra-observer reliability in addition to the agreement between the experienced and non-experienced physicians with respect to three different classification systems for diagnosis of cervical spinal canal stenosis.

Methods

Total nine doctors including experienced group of three doctors and non-experienced group of six doctors classified the patients according to three different classification in an independent, blinded manner using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to diagnose cervical canal stenosis. MRI slice included sagittal plane (midline cut) and an image slice from each horizontal plane that penetrated the right center of each disk (C3–4, C4–5, C5–6, and C6–7) was made by PPT format.

Results

For the inter-observer reliability, Vaccaro et al.’s classification system showed the excellent reproducibility, followed by Muhle et al. and Kang et al. All three classification systems showed excellent reproducibility and substantial agreement in terms of the intra-observer reliability.

Conclusions

All three classification systems showed excellent reproducibility and also displayed a substantial agreement. The classification system used by Vaccaro et al. was proven to be a method with substantial agreement both in the experienced group and the non-experienced group. It can be a useful classification system for simplifying communication among all physicians.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Meyer F, Börm W, Thomé C (2008) Degenerative cervical spinal stenosis. Current strategies in diagnosis and treatment. Dtsch Arztebl Int 105:366–372

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Freeman BA, Hoffler CE II, Cameron BM, Rhee JM, Bawa M, Malone DG et al (2015) A comparison of computed tomography measures for diagnosing cervical spinal stenosis associated with myelopathy: a case–control study. Asian Spine J 9:22–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Teresi LM, Lufkin RB, Relcher MA, Moffit BJ, Vinuela FV, Wilson GM et al (1987) Asymptomatic degenerative disc disease and spondylosis of the cervical spine: MR imaging. Radiology 164:83–88

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Muhle C, Metzner J, Weinert D, Falliner A, Brinkmann G, Mehdorn MH et al (1998) Classification system based on kinematic MR imaging in cervical spondylitic myelopathy. Am J Neuroradiol 19:1763–1771

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Edwards CC 2nd, Riew KD, Anderson PA, Hillibrand AS, Vaccaro AF (2003) Cervical myelopathy. Current diagnostic and treatment strategies. Spine J 3:68–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Radcliff K, Kepler C, Sidhu G, Albert T, Hillibrand A, Anderson DG et al (2012) A novel, anatomically based classification of cervical stenosis. CSRS Resource Center. http://www.csrs.org/clinical-validation-of-a-novel-anatomically-based-classification-of-cervical-stenosis/

  7. Kang YS, Lee JW, Koh YH, Hur SB, Kim SJ, Chai JW et al (2011) New MRI grading system for the cervical canal stenosis. Am J Roentgenol 197:134–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee MJ, Cassinelli EH, Riew KD (2007) Prevalence of cervical spine stenosis: anatomic study in cadavers. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:376–380

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kang JD, Figgie MP, Bohlman HH (1994) Sagittal measurements of the cervical spine in subaxial fractures and dislocations. An analysis of two hundred and eighty-eight patients with and without neurological deficits. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:1617–1628

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Torg JS, Naranja RJ Jr, Pavlov H, Galinat BJ, Warren R, Stine RA (1996) The relationship of developmental narrowing of the cervical spinal canal to reversible and irreversible injury of the cervical spinal cord in football players. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:1308–1314

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gore DR (2001) Roentgenographic findings in the cervical spine in asymptomatic persons: a ten-year follow-up. Spine 26:2463–2466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boden SD, Dodge LD, Bohlman HH, Rechtine GR (1993) Rheumatoid arthritis of the cervical spine. A long-term analysis with predictors of paralysis and recovery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:1282–1297

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Murone I (1974) The importance of the sagittal diameters of the cervical spinal canal in relation to spondylosis and myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 56:30–36

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Suda K, Yamagata M, Ueta T, Kato F (2016) Narrow cervical canal in 1211 asymptomatic healthy subjects: the relationship with spinal cord compression on MRI. Eur Spine J 25:2149–2154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pavlov H, Torg JS, Robie B, Jahre C (1987) Cervical spinal stenosis: determination with vertebral body ratio method. Radiology 164:771–775

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rüegg TB, Wicki AG, Aebli N, Wisianowsky C, Krebs J (2015) The diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging measurements for assessing cervical spinal canal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 22:230–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kadanka Z, Bednarík J, Vohánka S, Vlach O, Stejskal L, Chaloupka R et al (2000) Conservative treatment versus surgery in spondylotic cervical myelopathy: a prospective randomized study. Eur Spine J 9:538–544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kadaňka Z, Bednařík J, Novotný O, Urbánek I, Dusek L (2011) Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur Spine J 20:1533–1538

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rhee JM, Shamji MF, Erwin MW, Bransford RJ, Yoon ST, Smith JS et al (2013) Nonoperative management of cervical myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine 38:S55–S67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Edwards WC, LaRocca SH (1983) The development segmental sagittal diameter of the cervical spinal canal in patients with cervical spondylosis. Spine 8:20–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lim JK, Wong HK (2004) Variation of the cervical spinal Torg ratio with gender and ethnicity. Spine J 4:396–401

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tierney RT, Maldjian C, Mattacola CG, Straub SJ, Sitler MR (2002) Cervical spine stenosis measures in normal subjects. J Athl Train 37:190–193

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Prasad SS, O’Malley M, Caplan M, Shackleford IM, Pydisetty RK (2003) MRI measurements of the cervical spine and their correlation to Pavlov’s ratio. Spine 28:1263–1268

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, 33, Duryugongwon-ro 17-gil, Nam-gu, Daegu, 42472, Korea

    Sangbong Ko, Wonkee Choi & Seungbum Chae

Authors
  1. Sangbong Ko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wonkee Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seungbum Chae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sangbong Ko.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ko, S., Choi, W. & Chae, S. Comparison of inter- and intra-observer reliability among the three classification systems for cervical spinal canal stenosis. Eur Spine J 26, 2290–2296 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5187-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5187-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation