Qualitative Assessment of Cervical Spinal Stenosis: Observer Variability on CT and MR Images

References

1. ↵
   Bernhardt M, Hynes RA, Blume HW, White AA III. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75:119–128

   PubMedWeb of Science
2. Dvorak J. Epidemiology, physical examination, and neurodiagnostics. Spine 1998;23:2663–2672

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. Irvine DH, Foster JB, Newell DJ, Klukvin BN. Prevalence of cervical spondylosis in a general practice. Lancet 1965;1:1089–1092

   PubMed
4. ↵
   Langfitt TW, Elliot FA. Pain in the back and legs caused by cervical spinal cord compression. JAMA 1967;200:112–115
5. ↵
   Landis RJ, Koch GG. The measure of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. ↵
   Drew B, Bhandari M, Kulkarni A, Louw D, Raddy K, Dunlop B. Reliability in grading the severity of lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 2000;13:253–258

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. ↵
   North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Steering Committee. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial: methods, patient characteristics, and progress. Stroke 1991;22:711–720

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. ↵
   Larsson EM, Holtas S, Cronqvist S, Brandt L. Comparison of myelography, CT myelography and magnetic resonance imaging in cervical spondylosis and disk herniation: pre- and postoperative findings. Acta Radiol 1989;30:233–239

   PubMedWeb of Science
9. ↵
   Blackley HR, Plank LD, Robertson PA. Determining the sagittal dimensions of the canal of the cervical spine: the reliability of ratios of anatomical measurements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81:110–112
10. ↵
    Matsuura P, Waters RL, Adkins RH, Rothman S, Gurbani N, Sie I. Comparison of computerized tomography parameters of the cervical spine in normal control subjects and spinal cord-injured patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989;71:183–188

    PubMed
11. ↵
    Fujiwara K, Yonenobu K, Hiroshima K, Ebara S, Yamashita K, Ono K. Morphometry of the cervical spinal cord and its relation to pathology in cases with compression myelopathy. Spine 1988;13:1212–1216

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. ↵
    Fukushima T, Ikata T, Taoka Y, Takata S. Magnetic resonance imaging study on spinal cord plasticity in patients with cervical compression myelopathy. Spine 1991;16:S534–S538

    PubMedWeb of Science
13. Okada Y, Ikata T, Katoh S, Yamada H. Morphologic analysis of the cervical spinal cord, dural tube, and spinal canal by magnetic resonance imaging in normal adults and patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 1994;19:2331–2335

    PubMedWeb of Science
14. Okada Y, Ikata T, Yamada H, Sakamoto R, Katoh S. Magnetic resonance imaging study on the results of surgery for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine 1993;18:2024–2029

    PubMed
15. ↵
    Stanley JH, Schabel SI, Frey GD, Hungerford GD. Quantitative analysis of the cervical spinal canal by computed tomography. Neuroradiology 1986;28:139–143

    PubMed
16. ↵
    Laurencin CT, Lipson SJ, Senatus P, et al. The stenosis ratio: a new tool for the diagnosis of degenerative spinal stenosis. Int J Surg Investig 1999;1:127–131

    PubMed