Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Include Proceedings
Access
Journals
Abstracts
Dates
Year From
Year To
Specialties
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_9 | Pages 29 - 29
1 Oct 2022
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, AND REPORTING OF (SHAM) CONTROL INTERVENTIONS IN EFFICACY TRIALS OF PHYSICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND SELF-MANAGEMENT THERAPIES: THE CoPPS STATEMENT
Hohenschurz-Schmidt D Vase L Scott W Annoni M Barth J Bennell K Renella CB Bialosky J Braithwaite F Finnerup N de C Williams AC Carlino E Cerritelli F Chaibi A Cherkin D Colloca L Côte P Darnall B Evans R Fabre L Faria V French S Gerger H Häuser W Hinman R Ho D Janssens T Jensen K Lunde SJ Keefe F Kerns R Koechlin H Kongsted A Michener L Moerman D Musial F Newell D Nicholas M Palermo T Palermo S Pashko S Peerdeman K Pogatzki-Zahn E Puhl A Roberts L Rossettini G Johnston C Matthiesen ST Underwood M Vaucher P Wartolowska K Weimer K Werner C Rice A Draper-Rodi J
Full Access
View article

Background

Specifically designed control interventions can account for expectation effects in clinical trials. For the interpretation of efficacy trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for people living with pain, the design, conduct, and reporting of control interventions is crucial.

Objectives

To establish a quality standard in the field, core recommendations are presented alongside additional considerations and a reporting checklist for control interventions.

Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 93-B, Issue SUPP_IV | Pages 592 - 593
1 Nov 2011
193 – CT AND MRI FOR ASSESSMENT OF DEGENERATIVE LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS: IS MR SUPERIOR TO CT?
Bailey CS Alsaleh K Ho D Rosas-Arellano P Bailey SI Gurr KR
Full Access
View article

Purpose: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Computerized tomography (CT) are commonly used for the diagnosis and assessment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The available literature has not identified which modality is superior. We compared the reliability and accuracy of CT and MRI in the assessment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Method: We performed a prospective review of CT and MRI scans of 54 patients referred for surgical consultation. One orthopaedic spine fellow and one neuro-radiologist reviewed the CTs and MRIs. A qualitative and quantitative analysis was performed. Intra-observer and inter-observer reliability was determined using Kappa coefficient. The patient’s official reports were correlated with analysis performed by the two reviewers. Owsestry and SF-36 data was correlated with the qualitative and qualitative assessment of stenosis on CT, MRI using the Pearson’s R coefficient.

Results: MRI – substantial inter-observer agreement was achieved between surgeon and neuro-radiologist as well as between surgeon and reporting radiologist (κ= 0.74 and κ=0.64 respectively). Moderate agreement was found between neuro-radiologist and reporting radiologist (κ=0.57). Almost perfect intra-observer reliability for MRI was achieved by the two expert reviewers (κ=0.91 for surgeon and κ=0.92 for neuro-radiologist). CT – moderate inter-observer agreement (κ=0.58) was found between surgeon and neuro-radiologist. Fair agreement was found between neuro-radiologist and reporting radiologist and between surgeon and reporting radiologist (κ=0.30 and 0.32 respectively). Substantial intra-observer agreement was found for the surgeon (κ=0.77) while the neuro-radiologist achieved almost perfect agreement (κ=0.96).

Conclusion: This study directly demonstrates that MRI is likely a more reliable tool than CT, but neither correlates with functional status.

Image linking to Orthomedia