Clinical and experimental rheumatology · 2013
Scoring with the Berlin MRI method for assessment of spinal inflammatory activity in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a calibration exercise among rheumatologists.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Carmona Loreto, Sellas Agusti, Rodríguez-Lozano Carlos, Juanola Xavier, García Llorente José Francisco, Fernández Sueiro José Luis, Linares Luis Francisco, de Castro M Carmen, Moreno Mireia, Zarco Pedro, Ariza Rafael, Baraliakos Xenofon, de Miguel Eugenio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To test the reliability of the Berlin MRI scoring method and the effect of a calibration exercise on the score's reliability among untrained readers in MRI examinations of patients with established ankylosing spondylitis (AS).
METHODS: Eleven rheumatologists read blinded images of 20 AS patients before and after a two-day workshop on the Berlin MRI scoring method. Reliability (intra- and inter-reader) and concordance with the expert (all measured by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)) were compared before and after 2 weeks of the training. Feasibility in terms of time and difficulty was also measured.
RESULTS: The mean Berlin score increased from (mean ± standard deviation) 5.04 ± 6.41 before to 6.40±7.08 after the calibration exercise (p<0.01). Inter-reader ICC decreased from 0.83 (95% CI: 0.75-0.93) to 0.78 (95% CI: 0.66-0.90), and intra-reader ICC from 0.89 (95% CI: 0.84-0.94) to 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.92). Agreement with an experienced reader improved after the calibration exercise, with ICC = 0.59 (95% CI 0.45-0.76) before vs. ICC = 0.65 (95% CI 0.50-0.80) after training.
CONCLUSIONS: The Berlin method is a reliable scoring method for assessment of spinal inflammatory activity by using MRI in patients with AS, even in the hands of inexperienced readers. A calibration exercise can improve feasibility and sensitivity of the scoring method.
METHODS: Eleven rheumatologists read blinded images of 20 AS patients before and after a two-day workshop on the Berlin MRI scoring method. Reliability (intra- and inter-reader) and concordance with the expert (all measured by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)) were compared before and after 2 weeks of the training. Feasibility in terms of time and difficulty was also measured.
RESULTS: The mean Berlin score increased from (mean ± standard deviation) 5.04 ± 6.41 before to 6.40±7.08 after the calibration exercise (p<0.01). Inter-reader ICC decreased from 0.83 (95% CI: 0.75-0.93) to 0.78 (95% CI: 0.66-0.90), and intra-reader ICC from 0.89 (95% CI: 0.84-0.94) to 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.92). Agreement with an experienced reader improved after the calibration exercise, with ICC = 0.59 (95% CI 0.45-0.76) before vs. ICC = 0.65 (95% CI 0.50-0.80) after training.
CONCLUSIONS: The Berlin method is a reliable scoring method for assessment of spinal inflammatory activity by using MRI in patients with AS, even in the hands of inexperienced readers. A calibration exercise can improve feasibility and sensitivity of the scoring method.