Craniometric parameters for the evaluation of platybasia and basilar invagination on magnetic resonance imaging: a reproducibility study.
Basilar invagination
Cephalometry
Craniovertebral junction
Magnetic resonance imaging
Odontoid process/abnormalities
Reproducibility of results
Journal
Radiologia brasileira
ISSN: 0100-3984
Titre abrégé: Radiol Bras
Pays: Brazil
ID NLM: 1305000
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
19
10
2020
pubmed:
20
10
2020
medline:
20
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The present study aims to perform a reproducibility study of the clivus-canal angle (CCA), Welcker's basal angle (WBA), and the distance from the odontoid process to Chamberlain's line (DOCL) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Two medical students and two radiologists respectively evaluated 100 and 50 consecutive MRI scans of adult skulls, selected randomly. Each examiner, working independently and blinded to the previous results, performed readings for each patient on two different occasions. Measurements were performed in T1-weighted sequences acquired in the midsagittal plane. The levels of intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver agreement were evaluated by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The mean values obtained by the examiners were 150º for the CCA, 130º for the WBA, and 2.5 mm for the DOCL. The ICC for interobserver agreement was 0.980, 0.935, and 0.967, for the CCA, WBA, and DOCL, respectively, for the students, compared with 0.977, 0.941, and 0.982, respectively, for the radiologists, and 0.980, 0.992, and 0.990, respectively, for all of the examiners together. In the analysis of intraobserver agreement, the ICC ranged from 0.929 to 0.959 for the CCA, from 0.918 to 0.964 for the WBA, and from 0.918 to 0.981 for the DOCL. The measurement of the CCA, WBA, and DOCL appears to show excellent intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver agreement on MRI. Realizar um estudo de reprodutibilidade do ângulo clivocanal (ACC), ângulo basal de Welcker (ABW) e distância do odontoide à linha de Chamberlain (DOLC) em ressonância magnética (RM). Quatro examinadores, dois graduandos de medicina e dois radiologistas, avaliaram, respectivamente, 100 e 50 indivíduos adultos submetidos a RM de crânio, consecutiva e aleatoriamente. Cada um realizou duas leituras para cada paciente em diferentes ocasiões, de forma cega e independente. As análises de concordância intraobservador e interobservador foram realizadas pelo coeficiente de correlação intraclasse (CCI), com intervalo de confiança de 95%. As medidas médias, considerando todos os examinadores, foram: ACC = 150º, ABW = 130º, DOLC = 2,5 mm. A análise interobservador entre os estudantes revelou CCI de 0,980, 0,935 e 0,967 para ACC, ABW e DOLC, respectivamente, e para os radiologistas, CCI de 0,977, 0,941 e 0,982, respectivamente. A análise interobservador entre estudantes e radiologistas revelou CCI de 0,980, 0,992 e 0,990, respectivamente. Em relação à análise intraobservador, as medidas do ACC tiveram CCI variando entre 0,929 e 0,959, ABW entre 0,918 e 0,964 e DOLC entre 0,918 e 0,981. ACC, ABW e DOLC obtiveram excelentes reprodutibilidades intraobservador e interobservador na RM.
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(por)
Realizar um estudo de reprodutibilidade do ângulo clivocanal (ACC), ângulo basal de Welcker (ABW) e distância do odontoide à linha de Chamberlain (DOLC) em ressonância magnética (RM).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33071375
doi: 10.1590/0100-3984.2019.0068
pmc: PMC7545739
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
314-319Références
Surg Neurol Int. 2015 Jul 08;6:118
pubmed: 26229733
Eur Spine J. 2009 Sep;18(9):1349-54
pubmed: 19653012
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2017 Jul;75(7):419-423
pubmed: 28746426
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2017 Oct;20(4):352-356
pubmed: 28799840
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2015 Feb;73(2):179
pubmed: 25742596
Eur J Radiol. 2018 Jul;104:58-63
pubmed: 29857867
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Sep;41(17):1365-71
pubmed: 26909827
Neurosurg Focus. 2015 Apr;38(4):E5
pubmed: 25828499
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 May 15;29(10):E204-8
pubmed: 15131455
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2013 Jun;71(6):405-7
pubmed: 23828528
Neurosurg Focus. 2015 Apr;38(4):E2
pubmed: 25828496
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 1978 Mar;36(1):27-31
pubmed: 637743
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2016 Aug;20(8):49
pubmed: 27344347
Neurosurg Rev. 2013 Oct;36(4):603-10; discussion 610
pubmed: 23640096
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 1994 Sep;52(3):363-9
pubmed: 7893211
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005 Jan;26(1):89-92
pubmed: 15661707
Eur Spine J. 2019 Feb;28(2):345-352
pubmed: 30498960
Radiographics. 1994 Mar;14(2):255-77
pubmed: 8190952
Surg Neurol Int. 2010 Jul 16;1:
pubmed: 20847911
Neurol India. 2009 May-Jun;57(3):235-46
pubmed: 19587461
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2003 Jun;61(2B):368-75
pubmed: 12894269
Childs Nerv Syst. 2008 Oct;24(10):1123-45
pubmed: 18461336
Yale J Biol Med. 1939 May;11(5):487-96
pubmed: 21433841
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992 May;158(5):1087-90
pubmed: 1566672
Neurosurg Rev. 2018 Jan;41(1):149-163
pubmed: 28258417
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2008 Nov;11(4):201-10
pubmed: 18950316