↓ Skip to main content

Does the META score evaluating osteoporotic and metastatic vertebral fractures have enough agreement to be used by orthopaedic surgeons with different levels of training?

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Does the META score evaluating osteoporotic and metastatic vertebral fractures have enough agreement to be used by orthopaedic surgeons with different levels of training?
Published in
European Spine Journal, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00586-018-5694-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julio Urrutia, Pablo Besa, Sergio Morales, Antonio Parlange, Sebastian Flores, Mauricio Campos, Sebastian Mobarec

Abstract

Differentiating osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF) from metastatic vertebral fractures (MVF) is difficult. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based score (META score) aiming to differentiate OVF and MVF was recently published; however, an independent agreement assessment is required before the score is used. We performed such independent agreement evaluation, including raters with different levels of training. Sixty-four patients with confirmed OVF or MVF were evaluated by six raters (three spine surgeons and three orthopaedic residents) using the META score. We used the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to evaluate inter- and intra-observer agreement and the kappa statistic (κ) to determine the agreement for individual score criteria. We calculated the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) to establish the score accuracy. The inter-observer agreement was poor [ICC = 0.22 (0.12-0.33)]; spine surgeons [ICC = 0.75 (0.66-0.83)] had better agreement than that of residents [ICC = 0.06 (- 0.07 to 0.23)]. The intra-observer agreement was poor [ICC = 0.15 (- 0.04 to 0.30)]; both spine surgeons [ICC = 0.21 (0.05-0.41)] and residents exhibited poor agreement [ICC = - 0.06 (- 0.40 to 0.20)]. The agreement for each specific criterion varied from κ = 0.24 to κ = 0.38. The AUC was 0.57 (0.64 for spine surgeons and 0.51 for residents, p < 0.01). The inter-observer agreement using the META score was adequate for spine surgeons but not for residents; the intra-observer agreement was poor. These results do not support the standard use of the META score to differentiate OVF and MVF. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 27%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 9%
Unknown 7 64%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 27%
Neuroscience 1 9%
Unknown 7 64%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,641,800
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,508
of 4,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,271
of 326,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#38
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,686 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.