Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validity and interobserver agreement of a new radiographic grading system for intervertebral disc degeneration: Part II. Cervical spine

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A new radiographic grading system for a more objective assessment of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration has been described and tested in Part I of this study. The aim of the present Part II of the study was to adapt this system to the cervical spine, and to test it for validity and interobserver agreement. Some modifications of the grading system described in Part I were necessary to make it applicable to the cervical spine. Its basic structure, however, stayed untouched. The three variables “Height Loss”, “Osteophyte Formation” and “Diffuse Sclerosis” first have to be graded individually. Then, the “Overall Degree of Degeneration” is assigned on a four-point scale from 0 (no degeneration) to 3 (severe degeneration). For validation, the radiographic degrees of degeneration of 28 cervical discs were compared to the respective macroscopic ones, which were defined as “real” degrees of degeneration. The interobserver agreement was determined between one experienced and one unexperienced observer using the radiographs of 57 cervical discs. Quadratic weighted Kappa coefficients (κ) with 95% confidence limits (95% CL) were used for statistical evaluation. The validation of the new version of the radiographic grading system showed a moderate agreement with the “real”, macroscopic overall degree of degeneration (κ=0.599, 95% CL 0.421–0.786). In 64% of all discs the “real” overall degree of degeneration was underestimated but never overestimated. This underestimation, however, was much less pronounced and the Kappa coefficients were significantly higher for the three variables: Height Loss, Osteophyte Formation, and Diffuse Sclerosis separately. The agreement between the radiographic ratings of the experienced and the unexperienced observer was substantial for the overall degree of degeneration (κ=0.688, 95% CL 0.580–0.796), almost perfect for the variable, Height Loss, moderate for Osteophyte Formation and fair for Diffuse Sclerosis. In conclusion, we believe that the new version of the radiographic grading system is a sufficiently valid and reliable tool to quantify the degree of degeneration of individual cervical intervertebral discs. In comparison to the version for the lumbar spine described in Part I, however, a slightly higher tendency to underestimate the “real” overall degree of degeneration and somewhat higher interobserver differences have to be expected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Benneker LM, Heini PF, Anderson SE, Alini M, Ito K (2005) Correlation of radiographic and MRI parameters to morphological and biochemical assessment of intervertebral disc degeneration. Eur Spine J 14(1):27–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brooker AE, Barter RW (1965) Cervical spondylosis. a clinical study with comparative radiology. Brain 88(5):925–936

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Collins DH (1949) The pathology of articular and spinal diseases. Edward Arnold & Co, London

  4. Cote P, Cassidy JD, Yong-Hing K, Sibley J, Loewy J (1997) Apophysial joint degeneration, disc degeneration, and sagittal curve of the cervical spine. Can they be measured reliably on radiographs? Spine 22(8):859–864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fleiss J, Cohen J (1973) The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 33:613–619

    Google Scholar 

  6. Friedenberg ZB, Miller WT (1963) Degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 45:1171–1178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Frobin W, Leivseth G, Biggemann M, Brinckmann P (2002) Vertebral height, disc height, posteroanterior displacement and dens-atlas gap in the cervical spine: precision measurement protocol and normal data. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 17(6):423–431

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fujiwara A, Lim TH, An HS, et al. (2000) The effect of disc degeneration and facet joint osteoarthritis on the segmental flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 25(23):3036–3044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hirsch C (1972) Some morphological changes in the cervical spine during ageing. In: Hirsch C, Zotterman Y (eds) Cervical pain. Pergamon, New York, pp 21–32

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kellgren JH, Jeffrey MR, Ball J (1963) The epidemiology of chronic rheumatism. Vol. II: Atlas of standard radiographs of arthritis. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 14–19

  11. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1952) Rheumatism in miners. II. X-ray study. Br J Ind Med 9(3):197–207

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16(4):494–502

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kettler A and Wilke H-J (2005) Review of existing grading systems for cervical and lumbar disc and facet joint degeneration. Eur Spine J (accepted)

  14. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lehto IJ, Tertti MO, Komu ME, Paajanen HE, Tuominen J, Kormano MJ (1994) Age-related MRI changes at 0.1 T in cervical discs in asymptomatic subjects. Neuroradiology 36(1):49–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Macnab I (1975) Cervical spondylosis. Clin Orthop 109:69–77

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 26(17):1873–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. SAS (1999) SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA

  19. Schellhas KP, Smith MD, Gundry CR, Pollei SR (1996) Cervical discogenic pain. Prospective correlation of magnetic resonance imaging and discography in asymptomatic subjects and pain sufferers. Spine 21(3):300–311; discussion 311–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schneiderman G, Flannigan B, Kingston S, Thomas J, Dillin WH, Watkins RG (1987) Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of disc degeneration: correlation with discography. Spine 12(3):276–281

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Silberstein CE (1965) The evolution of degenerative changes in the cervical spine and an investigation into the “Joints of Luschka”. Clin Orthop 40:184–204

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tertti M, Paajanen H, Laato M, Aho H, Komu M, Kormano M (1991) Disc degeneration in magnetic resonance imaging. A comparative biochemical, histologic, and radiologic study in cadaver spines. Spine 16(6):629–634

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thompson JP, Pearce RH, Schechter MT, Adams ME, Tsang IK, Bishop PB (1990) Preliminary evaluation of a scheme for grading the gross morphology of the human intervertebral disc. Spine 15(5):411–415

    Google Scholar 

  24. Töndury G (1972) The behaviour of the cervical discs during life. In: Hirsch C, Zotterman Y (eds) Cervical pain. Pergamon, New York, pp 59–66

    Google Scholar 

  25. Viikari-Juntura E, Raininko R, Videman T, Porkka L (1989) Evaluation of cervical disc degeneration with ultralow field MRI and discography. An experimental study on cadavers. Spine 14(6):616–619

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Deutsche Arthrose-Hilfe e.V. for financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, University of Ulm, Helmholtzstrasse 14, 89081, Ulm, Germany

    Annette Kettler, Cornelia Neidlinger-Wilke, Karin Werner, Lutz Claes & Hans-Joachim Wilke

  2. Department of Biometry and Medical Documentation, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany

    Friederike Rohlmann

Authors
  1. Annette Kettler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Friederike Rohlmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cornelia Neidlinger-Wilke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karin Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lutz Claes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hans-Joachim Wilke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans-Joachim Wilke.

Additional information

Part I of this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1029-9

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kettler, A., Rohlmann, F., Neidlinger-Wilke, C. et al. Validity and interobserver agreement of a new radiographic grading system for intervertebral disc degeneration: Part II. Cervical spine. Eur Spine J 15, 732–741 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1037-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1037-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation