Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 4/2009

01-04-2009 | Original Article

Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of powers ratio for assessment of atlanto-occipital junction: comparison of plain radiography and computed tomography

Authors: Gang Li, Peter Passias, Michal Kozanek, Brian D. Shannon, Guoan Li, Fernando Villamil, Christopher M. Bono, Mitchel Harris, Kirkham B. Wood

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 4/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Powers ratio, as assessed on plain radiographs or computed tomography (CT) images, appears to have clinical and prognostic value. To date, the validation of this assessment tool has been limited to a small number of observers at a single site. No study has examined the intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability of the Powers ratio measurement on plain radiographs or CT images among a large cohort of spine surgeons. This type of validation is critical to allow for the broader use of the Powers ratio methodology in research studies and clinical applications. Plain radiographs and spiral CT images of the cervical spine of 32 patients were assessed, and the Powers ratio was determined by five spine surgeons. Each surgeon performed three readings, 7 months apart. In the first round of measurements, the observers used only the Powers’ method of instruction. The second and third measurement sets were obtained after an interactive teaching session on the methodology. The order of the images was altered for the second and third set of measurements. The coefficient of variation (Cv) was calculated to determine the intraobserver repeatability and interobserver reliability for each imaging technique. A Bland-Altman plot was then used to assess the agreement between the two imaging techniques. For interobserver reliability, the mean Cv of the Powers ratio was 9.09 and 4.31% for plain radiographs and CT, respectively. The Cv mean value for intraobserver reproducibility averaged 4.95% (range 1.39–9.08) when CT scans were used and 14.17% (range 7.54–34.30) when plain radiographs were used. For intraobserver reproducibility, the lowest and highest Cv mean value of five raters was 1.39 and 9.08% using CT scans and 7.54 and 34.3% using plain radiographs. The Bland-Altman plot, demonstrated that the two methods were in close agreement on the −0.8 and 0.89% interval for limits of agreement (bias ± 1.96σ). The intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability of Powers ratio measurement was acceptable (<5%) with CT scans but not with plain radiographs. However, despite the statistically inferior reliability and repeatability, the Bland-Altman plot analysis showed that given the −0.8 and 0.89% limits of agreement, the two methods may be used interchangeably in clinical practice.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310PubMed Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310PubMed
4.
go back to reference Fleiss JL (1981) Statistical methods for raters and proportions, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 212–236 Fleiss JL (1981) Statistical methods for raters and proportions, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 212–236
5.
go back to reference Gaa J, Deininger HK (1989) Traumatic atlanto-occipital dislocation in conventional x-ray diagnosis. Radiologe 29(7):354–358PubMed Gaa J, Deininger HK (1989) Traumatic atlanto-occipital dislocation in conventional x-ray diagnosis. Radiologe 29(7):354–358PubMed
Metadata
Title
Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of powers ratio for assessment of atlanto-occipital junction: comparison of plain radiography and computed tomography
Authors
Gang Li
Peter Passias
Michal Kozanek
Brian D. Shannon
Guoan Li
Fernando Villamil
Christopher M. Bono
Mitchel Harris
Kirkham B. Wood
Publication date
01-04-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 4/2009
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0877-5

Other articles of this Issue 4/2009

European Spine Journal 4/2009 Go to the issue