The Pfirrmann classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration: an independent inter- and intra-observer agreement assessment
- 1.2k Downloads
Grading inter-vertebral disc degeneration (IDD) is important in the evaluation of many degenerative conditions, including patients with low back pain. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered the best imaging instrument to evaluate IDD. The Pfirrmann classification is commonly used to grade IDD; the authors describing this classification showed an adequate agreement using it; however, there has been a paucity of independent agreement studies using this grading system. The aim of this study was to perform an independent inter- and intra-observer agreement study using the Pfirrmann classification.
T2-weighted sagittal images of 79 patients consecutively studied with lumbar spine MRI were classified using the Pfirrmann grading system by six evaluators (three spine surgeons and three radiologists). After a 6-week interval, the 79 cases were presented to the same evaluators in a random sequence for repeat evaluation. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the weighted kappa (wκ) were used to determine the inter- and intra-observer agreement.
The inter-observer agreement was excellent, with an ICC = 0.94 (0.93–0.95) and wκ = 0.83 (0.74–0.91). There were no differences between spine surgeons and radiologists. Likewise, there were no differences in agreement evaluating the different lumbar discs. Most differences among observers were only of one grade. Intra-observer agreement was also excellent with ICC = 0.86 (0.83–0.89) and wκ = 0.89 (0.85–0.93).
In this independent study, the Pfirrmann classification demonstrated an adequate agreement among different observers and by the same observer on separate occasions. Furthermore, it allows communication between radiologists and spine surgeons.
KeywordsDisc degeneration Agreement study Disc degeneration classification Magnetic resonance imaging Lumbar spine
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
- 9.Fleiss J (1986) The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley, New York, pp 1–31Google Scholar
- 14.Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Hanscom B, Skinner JS, Abdu WA, Hilibrand AS, Boden SD, Deyo RA (2006) Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA 296:2441–2450. doi: 10.001//jama.296.20.2441 296/20/2441 [pii] CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, Herkowitz H, Cammisa F, Albert T, Boden SD, Hilibrand A, Goldberg H, Berven S, An H, Investigators S (2008) Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358:794–810. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0707136 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 16.Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Hanscom B, Tosteson AN, Blood EA, Birkmeyer NJ, Hilibrand AS, Herkowitz H, Cammisa FP, Albert TJ, Emery SE, Lenke LG, Abdu WA, Longley M, Errico TJ, Hu SS (2007) Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 356:2257–2270. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa070302 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.van Middendorp JJ, Audige L, Hanson B, Chapman JR, Hosman AJ (2010) What should an ideal spinal injury classification system consist of? A methodological review and conceptual proposal for future classifications. Eur Spine J 19:1238–1249. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1415-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Oner FC, Ramos LM, Simmermacher RK, Kingma PT, Diekerhof CH, Dhert WJ, Verbout AJ (2002) Classification of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: problems of reproducibility. A study of 53 patients using CT and MRI. Eur Spine J 11:235–245. doi: 10.1007/s00586-001-0364-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar