Can we have an overall osteoarthritis severity score for the patellofemoral joint using magnetic resonance imaging? Reliability and validity
- 139 Downloads
This work aimed to assess inter-rater reliability and agreement of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based Kellgren and Lawrence (K&L) grading for patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis (OA) and to validate it against the MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score (MOAKS). MRI scans from people aged 45 to 75 years with chronic knee pain participating in a randomised clinical trial evaluating dietary supplements were utilised. Fifty participants were randomly selected and scored using the MRI-based K&L grading using axial and sagittal MRI scans. Raters conducted inter-rater reliability, blinded to clinical information, radiology reports and other rater results. Intra- and inter-rater reliability and agreement were evaluated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen’s weighted kappa. There was a 2-week interval between the first and second readings for intra-rater reliability. Validity was assessed using the MOAKS and evaluated using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Intra-rater reliability of the K&L system was excellent: ICC 0.91 (95% CI 0.82–0.95); weighted kappa (ĸ = 0.69). Inter-rater reliability was high (ICC 0.88; 95% CI 0.79–0.93), while agreement between raters was moderate (ĸ = 0.49–0.57). Validity analysis demonstrated a strong correlation between the total MOAKS features score and the K&L grading system (ρ = 0.62–0.67) but weak correlations when compared with individual MOAKS features (ρ = 0.19–0.61). The high reliability and good agreement show consistency in grading the severity of patellofemoral OA with the MRI-based K&L score. Our validity results suggest that the scale may be useful, particularly in the clinical environment. Future research should validate this method against clinical findings.
KeywordsBone Cartilage Diagnostic imaging Knee Magnetic resonance imaging Osteoarthritis
Compliance with ethical standards
The study is in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and it was approved by the local human research ethics committee.
- 11.Hunter DJ, Zhang W, Conaghan PG, Hirko K, Menashe L, Reichmann WM (2011) Responsiveness and reliability of MRI in knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of published evidence. Osteoarthr Cartil 19Google Scholar
- 13.Barr AJ, Campbell TM, Hopkinson D, Kingsbury SR, Bowes MA, Conaghan PG A systematic review of the relationship between subchondral bone features, pain and structural pathology in peripheral joint osteoarthritis. Arthritis Res Therapy 17:228Google Scholar
- 15.Yusuf E, Kortekaas MC, Watt I, Huizinga TW, Kloppenburg M Do knee abnormalities visualised on MRI explain knee pain in knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review. Ann Rheum Dis 70(1):60–67Google Scholar
- 17.Felson DT, Lynch J, Guermazi A, Roemer FW, Niu J, McAlindon T et al (2010) Comparison of BLOKS and WORMS scoring systems part II. Longitudinal assessment of knee MRIs for osteoarthritis and suggested approach based on their performance: data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Osteoarthr Cartil 18(11):1402–1407CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Medixant. RadiAnt DICOM Viewer. 2011Google Scholar
- 29.Zaiontz C. Real statistics resource pack. 2013Google Scholar
- 31.Cohen J (2013) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Burlington: Elsevier ScienceGoogle Scholar