Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 25–35 | Cite as

Reliability of standing weight-bearing (0.25T) MR imaging findings and positional changes in the lumbar spine

  • Bjarke B. HansenEmail author
  • Philip Hansen
  • Anders F. Christensen
  • Charlotte Trampedach
  • Zoreh Rasti
  • Henning Bliddal
  • Mikael Boesen
Scientific Article



To test the reliability and absolute agreement of common degenerative findings in standing positional magnetic resonance imaging (pMRI).

Methods and materials

Low back pain patients with and without sciatica were consecutively enrolled to undergo a supine and standing pMRI. Three readers independently evaluated the standing pMRI for herniation, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, HIZ lesions and facet joint effusion. The evaluation included a semi-quantitative grading of spinal stenosis, foraminal stenosis and spinal nerve root compression. The standing pMRI images were evaluated with full access to supine MRI. In case lower grades or the degenerative findings were not present in the supine images, this was reported separately as position-dependent changes. A subsample of 20 pMRI examinations was reevaluated after two months. The reproducibility was assessed by inter- and intra-reader reliability (kappa statistic) and absolute agreement between readers.


Fifty-six patients were included in this study. There was fair-to-substantial inter-reader reliability (κ 0.47 to 0.82) and high absolute agreement (72.3% to 99.1%) for the pMRI findings. The intra-reader assessment showed similar reliability and agreement (κ 0.36 to 0.85; absolute agreement: 62.5% to 98.8%). Positional changes between the supine and standing position showed a fair-to-moderate inter- and intra-reader reliability (κ 0.25 to 0.52; absolute agreement: 97.0% to 99.1).


Evaluation of the lumbar spine for degenerative findings by standing pMRI has acceptable reproducibility; however, positional changes from the supine to the standing position as an independent outcome should be interpreted with caution because of lower reliability, which calls for further standardisation.


Magnetic resonance imaging Positional MRI Weight bearing Lumbar spine G-scan Reliability 



This study was supported by unrestricted grants from The Oak Foundation (grant no. OCAY-13-309), Savværksejer Jeppe Juhl og Hustru Ovita Juhls Mindelegat, Minister Erna Hamiltons Legat for Videnskab og Kunst and the Danish Rheumatism Association. The funding sources did not influence the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. We would also like to thank Prof. Robin Christensen for statistical support and methodological feedback.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

M.B. and P.H. have received funding for congress fees and traveling expenses from ESAOTE in 2016. All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

256_2017_2746_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (3.8 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 3939 kb)


  1. 1.
    Lurie JD, Doman DM, Spratt KF, Tosteson ANA, Weinstein JN. Magnetic resonance imaging interpretation in patients with symptomatic lumbar spine disc herniations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:701–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deyo RA. Diagnostic evaluation of LBP: reaching a specific diagnosis is often impossible. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1444-7–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alyas F, Connell D. Saifuddin a. Upright positional MRI of the lumbar spine. Clin Radiol. 2008;63:1035–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Splendiani A, Perri M, Grattacaso G, Di Tunno V, Marsecano C, Panebianco L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lumbar spine with dedicated G-scan machine in the upright position: a retrospective study and our experience in 10 years with 4305 patients. Radiol Med Springer Milan. 2016;121:38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tarantino U, Fanucci E, Iundusi R, Celi M, Altobelli S, Gasbarra E, et al. Lumbar spine MRI in upright position for diagnosing acute and chronic low back pain: statistical analysis of morphological changes. J Orthop Traumatol. 2013;14:15–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jinkins JR, Dworkin JS, Damadian RV. Upright, weight-bearing, dynamic–kinetic MRI of the spine: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:1815–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee RKL, Griffith JF, Lau YYO, Leung JHY, Ng AWH, Hung EHY, et al. Diagnostic capability of low- versus high-field magnetic resonance imaging for lumbar degenerative disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:382–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zou J, Yang H, Miyazaki M, Wei F, Hong SW, Yoon SH, et al. Missed lumbar disc herniations diagnosed with kinetic magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:E140–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wildermuth S, Zanetti M, Duewell S, Schmid MR, Romanowski B, Benini A, et al. Lumbar spine: quantitative and qualitative assessment of positional (upright flexion and extension) MR imaging and myelography. Radiology. 1998;207:391–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Niggemann P, Kuchta J, Beyer H-K, Grosskurth D, Schulze T. Delank K-S. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:E1463–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alyas F, Sutcliffe J, Connell D, Saifuddin A. Morphological change and development of high-intensity zones in the lumbar spine from neutral to extension positioning during upright MRI. Clin Radiol Royal Coll Radiol. 2010;65:176–80.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Niggemann P, Kuchta J, Hoeffer J, Grosskurth D, Beyer H-K, Delank K-S. Juxtafacet cysts of the lumbar spine: a positional MRI study. Skelet Radiol. 2012;41:313–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kottner J, Streiner DL. The difference between reliability and agreement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:701–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. The standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy group. Croat Med J. 2003;44:639–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, et al. Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:96–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fardon DF, Milette PC. Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the Combined Task Forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:E93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guen YL, Joon WL, Hee SC, Kyoung-Jin O, Heung SK. A new grading system of lumbar central canal stenosis on MRI: an easy and reliable method. Skelet Radiol. 2011;40:1033–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carrino J A, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN a, Tosteson TD, Carragee EJ, Kaiser J, et al. lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings. Radiology 2009;250:161–170.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aprill C, Bogduk N. High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol. 1992;65:361–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schinnerer K, Katz LD, Grauer JN. MR findings of exaggerated fluid in facet joints predicts instability. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:468–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spinner RJ, Hébert-Blouin M-N, Maus TP, Atkinson JLD, Desy NM, Amrami KK. Evidence that atypical juxtafacet cysts are joint derived. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;12:96–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pfirrmann CW, Dora C, Schmid MR, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. MR image–based grading of lumbar nerve root compromise due to disk herniation: reliability study with surgical correlation. Radiology. 2004;230:583–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee S, Lee JW, Yeom JS, Kim K-J, Kim H-J, Chung SK, et al. A practical MRI grading system for lumbar foraminal stenosis. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1095–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mauch F, Jung C, Huth J, Bauer G. Changes in the lumbar spine of athletes from supine to the true-standing position in magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:1002–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hansen BB, Bendix T, Grindsted J, Bliddal H, Christensen R, Hansen P, et al. Effect of lumbar disc degeneration and low-back pain on the lumbar lordosis in supine and standing. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:1690–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Winklhofer S, Held U, Burgstaller JM, Finkenstaedt T, Bolog N, Ulrich N, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal canal stenosis: intra- and inter-reader agreement for magnetic resonance imaging parameters. Eur Spine J. 2017;26:353–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fu MC, Buerba RA, Long WD, Blizzard DJ, Lischuk AW, Haims AH, et al. Interrater and intrarater agreements of magnetic resonance imaging findings in the lumbar spine: significant variability across degenerative conditions. Spine J Elsevier Inc. 2014;14:2442–8.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sorensen SJ, Kjaer P, Jensen ST, Andersen P. Low-field magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine: reliability of qualitative evaluation of disc and muscle parameters. Acta Radiol. 2006;47:947–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jarvik JG, Haynor DR, Koepsell TD, Bronstein A, Ashley D, Deyo RA. Interreader reliability for a new classification of lumbar disk disease. Acad Radiol. 1996;3:537–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schizas C, Theumann N, Burn A, Tansey R, Wardlaw D, Smith FW, et al. Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:1919–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Madsen R, Jensen TS, Pope M, Sørensen JS, Bendix T. The effect of body position and axial load on spinal canal morphology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:61–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Daghighi MH, Poureisa M, Arablou F, Fouladi DF. Supine spinal magnetic resonance imaging with straightened lower extremities in spondylolisthesis: a comparison with the conventional technique. Eur J Radiol Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 2015;84:921–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dahabreh IJ, Hadar N, Chung M. Emerging magnetic resonance imaging technologies for musculoskeletal imaging under loading stress: scope of the literature. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:616.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schmid MR, Stucki G, Duewell S, Wildermuth S, Romanowski B, Hodler J. Changes in cross-sectional measurements of the spinal canal and intervertebral foramina as a function of body position: in vivo studies on an open-configuration MR system. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:1095–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Splendiani A, Ferrari F, Barile A, Masciocchi C, Gallucci M. Occult neural foraminal stenosis caused by association between disc degeneration and facet joint osteoarthritis: demonstration with dedicated upright MRI system. Radiol Med. 2014;119:164–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jinkins JR. Acquired degenerative changes of the intervertebral segments at and suprajacent to the lumbosacral junction. Eur J Radiol. 2004;50:134–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Indahl A. Low back pain: diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Scand J Rheumatol. 2004;33:199–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bjarke B. Hansen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philip Hansen
    • 2
  • Anders F. Christensen
    • 2
  • Charlotte Trampedach
    • 2
  • Zoreh Rasti
    • 2
  • Henning Bliddal
    • 1
  • Mikael Boesen
    • 2
  1. 1.The Parker InstituteDepartment of Reumatology, Copenhagen University HospitalKøbenhavn ØDenmark
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyCopenhagen University HospitalKøbenhavn ØDenmark

Personalised recommendations