Cargando…

Categorisation of lumbar spine MRI referrals in Denmark as compliant or non-compliant to international imaging guidelines: an inter-rater reliability study

BACKGROUND: Managing low back pain (LBP) often involves MRI despite the fact that international guidelines do not recommend routine imaging. To allow us to explore the topic and use this knowledge in further research, a reliable method to review the MRI referrals is needed. Consequently, this study...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krogh, Susanne Brogaard, Jensen, Tue Secher, Rolving, Nanna, Laursen, Malene, Thomsen, Janus Nikolaj Laust, Hansen, Casper Brink, Werenberg, Christoffer Høj, Rasmussen, Erik, Carlson, Rune, Jensen, Rikke Krüger
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7988995/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33761956
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-021-00370-9
_version_ 1783668874754916352
author Krogh, Susanne Brogaard
Jensen, Tue Secher
Rolving, Nanna
Laursen, Malene
Thomsen, Janus Nikolaj Laust
Hansen, Casper Brink
Werenberg, Christoffer Høj
Rasmussen, Erik
Carlson, Rune
Jensen, Rikke Krüger
author_facet Krogh, Susanne Brogaard
Jensen, Tue Secher
Rolving, Nanna
Laursen, Malene
Thomsen, Janus Nikolaj Laust
Hansen, Casper Brink
Werenberg, Christoffer Høj
Rasmussen, Erik
Carlson, Rune
Jensen, Rikke Krüger
author_sort Krogh, Susanne Brogaard
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Managing low back pain (LBP) often involves MRI despite the fact that international guidelines do not recommend routine imaging. To allow us to explore the topic and use this knowledge in further research, a reliable method to review the MRI referrals is needed. Consequently, this study aimed to assess the inter-rater reliability of a method evaluating lumbar spine MRI referrals’ appropriateness. METHODS: Four inexperienced students (chiropractic master’s students) and a senior clinician (chiropractor) were included as independent raters in this inter-rater reliability study. Lumbar spine MRI referrals from primary care on patients (> 18 years) with LBP with or without leg pain were included. The referrals were classified using a modified version of the American College of Radiology (ACR) imaging appropriateness criteria for LBP. Categories of appropriate referrals included; fractures, cancer, previous surgery, candidate for surgery or suspicion of cauda equina. Inappropriate referrals included lacking information on previous non-surgical treatment, no word on non-surgical treatment duration, or “other reasons” for inappropriate referrals. After two rounds of training and consensus sessions, 50 lumbar spine MRI referrals were reviewed independently by the five raters. Inter-rater reliability was quantified using unweighted Kappa statistics, and the observed agreement was calculated with both a pairwise comparison and an overall five-rater comparison. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was substantial, with a Kappa value for appropriate vs. inappropriate referrals of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.55–0.89). When six and eight subcategories were evaluated, the Kappa values were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.58–0.91) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72–0.92), respectively. The overall percentage of agreement for appropriate and inappropriate referrals was 92% and ranged from 88 to 98% for the pairwise comparisons of the five raters’ results. For the six and eight subcategories, the overall agreement was 92 and 88%, respectively, ranging from 88 to 98% and 84–92%, respectively, for the pairwise comparisons. CONCLUSION: The inter-rater reliability of the evaluation of the appropriateness of lumbar spine MRI referrals, according to the modified ACR-appropriateness criteria, was found to range from substantial to almost perfect and can be used for research and quality assurance purposes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-021-00370-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7988995
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79889952021-03-25 Categorisation of lumbar spine MRI referrals in Denmark as compliant or non-compliant to international imaging guidelines: an inter-rater reliability study Krogh, Susanne Brogaard Jensen, Tue Secher Rolving, Nanna Laursen, Malene Thomsen, Janus Nikolaj Laust Hansen, Casper Brink Werenberg, Christoffer Høj Rasmussen, Erik Carlson, Rune Jensen, Rikke Krüger Chiropr Man Therap Research BACKGROUND: Managing low back pain (LBP) often involves MRI despite the fact that international guidelines do not recommend routine imaging. To allow us to explore the topic and use this knowledge in further research, a reliable method to review the MRI referrals is needed. Consequently, this study aimed to assess the inter-rater reliability of a method evaluating lumbar spine MRI referrals’ appropriateness. METHODS: Four inexperienced students (chiropractic master’s students) and a senior clinician (chiropractor) were included as independent raters in this inter-rater reliability study. Lumbar spine MRI referrals from primary care on patients (> 18 years) with LBP with or without leg pain were included. The referrals were classified using a modified version of the American College of Radiology (ACR) imaging appropriateness criteria for LBP. Categories of appropriate referrals included; fractures, cancer, previous surgery, candidate for surgery or suspicion of cauda equina. Inappropriate referrals included lacking information on previous non-surgical treatment, no word on non-surgical treatment duration, or “other reasons” for inappropriate referrals. After two rounds of training and consensus sessions, 50 lumbar spine MRI referrals were reviewed independently by the five raters. Inter-rater reliability was quantified using unweighted Kappa statistics, and the observed agreement was calculated with both a pairwise comparison and an overall five-rater comparison. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was substantial, with a Kappa value for appropriate vs. inappropriate referrals of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.55–0.89). When six and eight subcategories were evaluated, the Kappa values were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.58–0.91) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72–0.92), respectively. The overall percentage of agreement for appropriate and inappropriate referrals was 92% and ranged from 88 to 98% for the pairwise comparisons of the five raters’ results. For the six and eight subcategories, the overall agreement was 92 and 88%, respectively, ranging from 88 to 98% and 84–92%, respectively, for the pairwise comparisons. CONCLUSION: The inter-rater reliability of the evaluation of the appropriateness of lumbar spine MRI referrals, according to the modified ACR-appropriateness criteria, was found to range from substantial to almost perfect and can be used for research and quality assurance purposes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-021-00370-9. BioMed Central 2021-03-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7988995/ /pubmed/33761956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-021-00370-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Krogh, Susanne Brogaard
Jensen, Tue Secher
Rolving, Nanna
Laursen, Malene
Thomsen, Janus Nikolaj Laust
Hansen, Casper Brink
Werenberg, Christoffer Høj
Rasmussen, Erik
Carlson, Rune
Jensen, Rikke Krüger
Categorisation of lumbar spine MRI referrals in Denmark as compliant or non-compliant to international imaging guidelines: an inter-rater reliability study
title Categorisation of lumbar spine MRI referrals in Denmark as compliant or non-compliant to international imaging guidelines: an inter-rater reliability study
title_full Categorisation of lumbar spine MRI referrals in Denmark as compliant or non-compliant to international imaging guidelines: an inter-rater reliability study
title_fullStr Categorisation of lumbar spine MRI referrals in Denmark as compliant or non-compliant to international imaging guidelines: an inter-rater reliability study
title_full_unstemmed Categorisation of lumbar spine MRI referrals in Denmark as compliant or non-compliant to international imaging guidelines: an inter-rater reliability study
title_short Categorisation of lumbar spine MRI referrals in Denmark as compliant or non-compliant to international imaging guidelines: an inter-rater reliability study
title_sort categorisation of lumbar spine mri referrals in denmark as compliant or non-compliant to international imaging guidelines: an inter-rater reliability study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7988995/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33761956
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-021-00370-9
work_keys_str_mv AT kroghsusannebrogaard categorisationoflumbarspinemrireferralsindenmarkascompliantornoncomplianttointernationalimagingguidelinesaninterraterreliabilitystudy
AT jensentuesecher categorisationoflumbarspinemrireferralsindenmarkascompliantornoncomplianttointernationalimagingguidelinesaninterraterreliabilitystudy
AT rolvingnanna categorisationoflumbarspinemrireferralsindenmarkascompliantornoncomplianttointernationalimagingguidelinesaninterraterreliabilitystudy
AT laursenmalene categorisationoflumbarspinemrireferralsindenmarkascompliantornoncomplianttointernationalimagingguidelinesaninterraterreliabilitystudy
AT thomsenjanusnikolajlaust categorisationoflumbarspinemrireferralsindenmarkascompliantornoncomplianttointernationalimagingguidelinesaninterraterreliabilitystudy
AT hansencasperbrink categorisationoflumbarspinemrireferralsindenmarkascompliantornoncomplianttointernationalimagingguidelinesaninterraterreliabilitystudy
AT werenbergchristofferhøj categorisationoflumbarspinemrireferralsindenmarkascompliantornoncomplianttointernationalimagingguidelinesaninterraterreliabilitystudy
AT rasmussenerik categorisationoflumbarspinemrireferralsindenmarkascompliantornoncomplianttointernationalimagingguidelinesaninterraterreliabilitystudy
AT carlsonrune categorisationoflumbarspinemrireferralsindenmarkascompliantornoncomplianttointernationalimagingguidelinesaninterraterreliabilitystudy
AT jensenrikkekruger categorisationoflumbarspinemrireferralsindenmarkascompliantornoncomplianttointernationalimagingguidelinesaninterraterreliabilitystudy