Search

The originally published version of this Article contained an error in Fig. 3, whereby an additional unrelated graph was overlaid on top of the magnetic susceptibility plot. Furthermore, the Article title contained an error in the capitalisation of ‘Stone Age’. Both of these errors have now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

STUDY DESIGN Study design randomized intra- and inter-reader reproducibility study. OBJECTIVE To evaluate reproducibility of quantitative morphometry (QM) and agreement of dichotomous fracture/no-fracture status on lateral spinal radiographs acquired during routine clinical practice using a clinical workflow tool. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Several recent guidelines have underlined the importance of Genant semi-quantitative scoring and selective QM to confirm and grade suspected vertebral fractures in clinical practice. METHODS Thoracic and lumbar spine radiographs were acquired from 98 consecutive subjects (mean age, 60.1 ± 11.7 yr) attending the clinic for osteoporosis evaluation. For each subject, QM and Genant semi-quantitative scoring were performed on all evaluable vertebrae from L4 to T4 using a software workflow tool. A radiologist and an experienced radiographical technician performed 2 repeat reading sessions of the radiographs 12 months apart, blinded to each other's results; for the second read, the cases were anonymized and the order was randomized. RESULTS Inter-reader reproducibility results were 3.1% and 3.2% coefficient of variation (%) for heights, 0.030 and 0.031 root mean square standard deviation for height ratios. For intrareader reproducibility, these values were 2.2% and 3.5% coefficient of variation %; 0.023 and 0.034 root mean square standard deviation. Kappa score results for agreement of dichotomous fracture/no-fracture status were 0.67 and 0.72 (inter-rater) and 0.50 and 0.67 (intrarater). CONCLUSION The software assessed in this study is a reliable clinical tool that facilitates QM and Genant semi-quantitative scoring of the spine in routine clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3.