Review of existing grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration

The aim of this literature review was to present and to evaluate all grading systems for cervical and lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration, which are accessible from the MEDLINE database. A MEDLINE search was conducted to select all articles presenting own grading systems for cervical or lumbar...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European spine journal 2006-06, Vol.15 (6), p.705-718
Hauptverfasser: Kettler, Annette, Wilke, Hans-Joachim
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 718
container_issue 6
container_start_page 705
container_title European spine journal
container_volume 15
creator Kettler, Annette
Wilke, Hans-Joachim
description The aim of this literature review was to present and to evaluate all grading systems for cervical and lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration, which are accessible from the MEDLINE database. A MEDLINE search was conducted to select all articles presenting own grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc or facet joint degeneration. To give an overview, these grading systems were listed systematically depending on the spinal region they refer to and the methodology used for grading. All systems were checked for reliability tests and those recommended for use having an interobserver Kappa or Intraclass Correlation Coefficient >0.60 if disc degeneration was graded and >0.40 if facet joint degeneration was graded. MEDLINE search revealed 42 different grading systems. Thirty of these were used to grade lumbar spine degeneration, ten were used to grade cervical spine degeneration and two were used to grade both. Thus, the grading systems for the lumbar spine represented the vast majority of all 42 grading systems. Interobserver reliability tests were found for 12 grading systems. Based on their Kappa or Intraclass Correlation Coefficients nine of these could be recommended for use and three could not. All other systems could neither be recommended nor not be recommended since reliability tests were missing. These systems should therefore first be tested before use. The design of the grading systems varied considerably. Five grading systems were beginning with the lowest degree of degeneration, 37, however, with the normal, not degenerated state. A 5-grade scale was used in six systems, a 4-grade scale in 24, a 3-grade scale in eight and a 2-grade scale in three systems. In 15 cases the normal, not degenerated state was assigned to "grade 0", in another 15 cases, however, this state was assigned to "grade 1". This wide variety in the design of the grading systems makes comparisons difficult and may easily lead to confusion. We would therefore recommend to define certain standards. Our suggestion would be to use a scale of three to five grades, to begin the scale with the not degenerated state and to assign this state to "grade 0".
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00586-005-0954-y
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3489462</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1103570421</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-e936c5474cb62e23c37fc11233a51b7eaf514b95ff7ab5d6030f53a5fd23ee433</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUU2LFDEQDaK4s6s_wIsED95aK5_dfRFkUVdYEERPHkI6XRkzdCdr0j06_96MM_h1qVdFvXrU4xHyhMELBtC-LACq002tDfRKNod7ZMOk4HUS_D7ZQC-h0S3rL8hlKTsApnrQD8kF06zlPfAN-fIR9wG_0-Qp_ghlCXFLt9mORyyHsuBcqE-ZOsz74OxEaz-t82AzHUNx1MaReutwobsU4kJH3GLEbJeQ4iPywNup4OMzXpHPb998ur5pbj-8e3_9-rZxksulwV5op2Qr3aA5cuFE6x1jXAir2NCi9YrJoVfet3ZQowYBXtWdH7lAlEJckVcn3bt1mHF0GJdsJ3OXw2zzwSQbzL-bGL6abdobIbteal4Fnp8Fcvq2YlnMXL3hNNmIaS1GdyC7rlWV-Ow_4i6tOVZzhguQQulfauxEcjmVktH__oSBOeZmTrmZWs0xN3OoN0__tvDn4hyU-Alk-ZV8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>230435662</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Review of existing grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Kettler, Annette ; Wilke, Hans-Joachim</creator><creatorcontrib>Kettler, Annette ; Wilke, Hans-Joachim</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this literature review was to present and to evaluate all grading systems for cervical and lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration, which are accessible from the MEDLINE database. A MEDLINE search was conducted to select all articles presenting own grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc or facet joint degeneration. To give an overview, these grading systems were listed systematically depending on the spinal region they refer to and the methodology used for grading. All systems were checked for reliability tests and those recommended for use having an interobserver Kappa or Intraclass Correlation Coefficient &gt;0.60 if disc degeneration was graded and &gt;0.40 if facet joint degeneration was graded. MEDLINE search revealed 42 different grading systems. Thirty of these were used to grade lumbar spine degeneration, ten were used to grade cervical spine degeneration and two were used to grade both. Thus, the grading systems for the lumbar spine represented the vast majority of all 42 grading systems. Interobserver reliability tests were found for 12 grading systems. Based on their Kappa or Intraclass Correlation Coefficients nine of these could be recommended for use and three could not. All other systems could neither be recommended nor not be recommended since reliability tests were missing. These systems should therefore first be tested before use. The design of the grading systems varied considerably. Five grading systems were beginning with the lowest degree of degeneration, 37, however, with the normal, not degenerated state. A 5-grade scale was used in six systems, a 4-grade scale in 24, a 3-grade scale in eight and a 2-grade scale in three systems. In 15 cases the normal, not degenerated state was assigned to "grade 0", in another 15 cases, however, this state was assigned to "grade 1". This wide variety in the design of the grading systems makes comparisons difficult and may easily lead to confusion. We would therefore recommend to define certain standards. Our suggestion would be to use a scale of three to five grades, to begin the scale with the not degenerated state and to assign this state to "grade 0".</description><identifier>ISSN: 0940-6719</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0932</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-0954-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16172902</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany: Springer Nature B.V</publisher><subject>Cervical Vertebrae - pathology ; Humans ; Intervertebral Disc - pathology ; Lumbar Vertebrae - pathology ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; MEDLINE ; Reproducibility of Results ; Review ; Spinal Diseases - diagnosis ; Spinal Diseases - diagnostic imaging ; Spinal Diseases - pathology ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><ispartof>European spine journal, 2006-06, Vol.15 (6), p.705-718</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2006</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-e936c5474cb62e23c37fc11233a51b7eaf514b95ff7ab5d6030f53a5fd23ee433</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-e936c5474cb62e23c37fc11233a51b7eaf514b95ff7ab5d6030f53a5fd23ee433</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3489462/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3489462/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16172902$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kettler, Annette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilke, Hans-Joachim</creatorcontrib><title>Review of existing grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration</title><title>European spine journal</title><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><description>The aim of this literature review was to present and to evaluate all grading systems for cervical and lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration, which are accessible from the MEDLINE database. A MEDLINE search was conducted to select all articles presenting own grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc or facet joint degeneration. To give an overview, these grading systems were listed systematically depending on the spinal region they refer to and the methodology used for grading. All systems were checked for reliability tests and those recommended for use having an interobserver Kappa or Intraclass Correlation Coefficient &gt;0.60 if disc degeneration was graded and &gt;0.40 if facet joint degeneration was graded. MEDLINE search revealed 42 different grading systems. Thirty of these were used to grade lumbar spine degeneration, ten were used to grade cervical spine degeneration and two were used to grade both. Thus, the grading systems for the lumbar spine represented the vast majority of all 42 grading systems. Interobserver reliability tests were found for 12 grading systems. Based on their Kappa or Intraclass Correlation Coefficients nine of these could be recommended for use and three could not. All other systems could neither be recommended nor not be recommended since reliability tests were missing. These systems should therefore first be tested before use. The design of the grading systems varied considerably. Five grading systems were beginning with the lowest degree of degeneration, 37, however, with the normal, not degenerated state. A 5-grade scale was used in six systems, a 4-grade scale in 24, a 3-grade scale in eight and a 2-grade scale in three systems. In 15 cases the normal, not degenerated state was assigned to "grade 0", in another 15 cases, however, this state was assigned to "grade 1". This wide variety in the design of the grading systems makes comparisons difficult and may easily lead to confusion. We would therefore recommend to define certain standards. Our suggestion would be to use a scale of three to five grades, to begin the scale with the not degenerated state and to assign this state to "grade 0".</description><subject>Cervical Vertebrae - pathology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intervertebral Disc - pathology</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - pathology</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>MEDLINE</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Spinal Diseases - diagnosis</subject><subject>Spinal Diseases - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Spinal Diseases - pathology</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><issn>0940-6719</issn><issn>1432-0932</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNpdUU2LFDEQDaK4s6s_wIsED95aK5_dfRFkUVdYEERPHkI6XRkzdCdr0j06_96MM_h1qVdFvXrU4xHyhMELBtC-LACq002tDfRKNod7ZMOk4HUS_D7ZQC-h0S3rL8hlKTsApnrQD8kF06zlPfAN-fIR9wG_0-Qp_ghlCXFLt9mORyyHsuBcqE-ZOsz74OxEaz-t82AzHUNx1MaReutwobsU4kJH3GLEbJeQ4iPywNup4OMzXpHPb998ur5pbj-8e3_9-rZxksulwV5op2Qr3aA5cuFE6x1jXAir2NCi9YrJoVfet3ZQowYBXtWdH7lAlEJckVcn3bt1mHF0GJdsJ3OXw2zzwSQbzL-bGL6abdobIbteal4Fnp8Fcvq2YlnMXL3hNNmIaS1GdyC7rlWV-Ow_4i6tOVZzhguQQulfauxEcjmVktH__oSBOeZmTrmZWs0xN3OoN0__tvDn4hyU-Alk-ZV8</recordid><startdate>20060601</startdate><enddate>20060601</enddate><creator>Kettler, Annette</creator><creator>Wilke, Hans-Joachim</creator><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>Springer-Verlag</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060601</creationdate><title>Review of existing grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration</title><author>Kettler, Annette ; Wilke, Hans-Joachim</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-e936c5474cb62e23c37fc11233a51b7eaf514b95ff7ab5d6030f53a5fd23ee433</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Cervical Vertebrae - pathology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intervertebral Disc - pathology</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - pathology</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>MEDLINE</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Spinal Diseases - diagnosis</topic><topic>Spinal Diseases - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Spinal Diseases - pathology</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kettler, Annette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilke, Hans-Joachim</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>European spine journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kettler, Annette</au><au>Wilke, Hans-Joachim</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Review of existing grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration</atitle><jtitle>European spine journal</jtitle><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><date>2006-06-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>705</spage><epage>718</epage><pages>705-718</pages><issn>0940-6719</issn><eissn>1432-0932</eissn><abstract>The aim of this literature review was to present and to evaluate all grading systems for cervical and lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration, which are accessible from the MEDLINE database. A MEDLINE search was conducted to select all articles presenting own grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc or facet joint degeneration. To give an overview, these grading systems were listed systematically depending on the spinal region they refer to and the methodology used for grading. All systems were checked for reliability tests and those recommended for use having an interobserver Kappa or Intraclass Correlation Coefficient &gt;0.60 if disc degeneration was graded and &gt;0.40 if facet joint degeneration was graded. MEDLINE search revealed 42 different grading systems. Thirty of these were used to grade lumbar spine degeneration, ten were used to grade cervical spine degeneration and two were used to grade both. Thus, the grading systems for the lumbar spine represented the vast majority of all 42 grading systems. Interobserver reliability tests were found for 12 grading systems. Based on their Kappa or Intraclass Correlation Coefficients nine of these could be recommended for use and three could not. All other systems could neither be recommended nor not be recommended since reliability tests were missing. These systems should therefore first be tested before use. The design of the grading systems varied considerably. Five grading systems were beginning with the lowest degree of degeneration, 37, however, with the normal, not degenerated state. A 5-grade scale was used in six systems, a 4-grade scale in 24, a 3-grade scale in eight and a 2-grade scale in three systems. In 15 cases the normal, not degenerated state was assigned to "grade 0", in another 15 cases, however, this state was assigned to "grade 1". This wide variety in the design of the grading systems makes comparisons difficult and may easily lead to confusion. We would therefore recommend to define certain standards. Our suggestion would be to use a scale of three to five grades, to begin the scale with the not degenerated state and to assign this state to "grade 0".</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pub>Springer Nature B.V</pub><pmid>16172902</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00586-005-0954-y</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0940-6719
ispartof European spine journal, 2006-06, Vol.15 (6), p.705-718
issn 0940-6719
1432-0932
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3489462
source MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Cervical Vertebrae - pathology
Humans
Intervertebral Disc - pathology
Lumbar Vertebrae - pathology
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
MEDLINE
Reproducibility of Results
Review
Spinal Diseases - diagnosis
Spinal Diseases - diagnostic imaging
Spinal Diseases - pathology
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
title Review of existing grading systems for cervical or lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T19%3A10%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Review%20of%20existing%20grading%20systems%20for%20cervical%20or%20lumbar%20disc%20and%20facet%20joint%20degeneration&rft.jtitle=European%20spine%20journal&rft.au=Kettler,%20Annette&rft.date=2006-06-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=705&rft.epage=718&rft.pages=705-718&rft.issn=0940-6719&rft.eissn=1432-0932&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00586-005-0954-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1103570421%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=230435662&rft_id=info:pmid/16172902&rfr_iscdi=true