IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0233633.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical validity of two different grading systems for lumbar central canal stenosis: Schizas and Lee classification systems

Author

Listed:
  • Yeon-jee Ko
  • Eugene Lee
  • Joon Woo Lee
  • Chi Young Park
  • Jungheum Cho
  • Yusuhn Kang
  • Joong Mo Ahn

Abstract

Objective: To assess the learnability of two magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) grading systems for lumbar central canal stenosis based on inter-observer agreement and test-retest reliability of doctors with no prior knowledge of the two systems. Materials and methods: Two clinical fellows, one novice radiology resident, one neurosurgeon, and one orthopedic surgeon, who were unaware of the two qualitative MRI grading systems prior to this study, acquainted themselves with the teaching files. All five observers independently assessed the LCCS grade of 70 patients using T2-weighted axial magnetic resonance images at the L2-3, L3-4, L3-4, and L5-S1 disc levels. Analysis was performed twice at an interval of two months. Results: The inter-observer agreement among all five readers was excellent and test-retest reliability was moderate to excellent for both the Schizas and Lee systems. Positive percentage agreements were found to be over 0.8 in almost all observers with relatively narrow 95% confidence limits. Conclusion: Both Schizas and Lee MRI grading systems for LCCS are reliable grading systems, and can be used as a learnable method for both clinicians and radiologists.

Suggested Citation

  • Yeon-jee Ko & Eugene Lee & Joon Woo Lee & Chi Young Park & Jungheum Cho & Yusuhn Kang & Joong Mo Ahn, 2020. "Clinical validity of two different grading systems for lumbar central canal stenosis: Schizas and Lee classification systems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0233633
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233633
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233633
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233633&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0233633?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0233633. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.