Background and purpose. The musculoskeletal system is recognized as a possible source of pain in patients with chest pain. The objectives of the present study were (1) to investigate the interobserver reliability of an overall diagnosis of musculoskeletal chest pain using a standardized examination protocol in a cohort of patients with chest pain suspected to be of non-cardiac origin, (2) to investigate the interobserver reliability of the single components of the protocol, and finally, (3) to investigate the importance of clinical experience on the level of interobserver reliability. Methods and results. Eighty patients with acute chest pain were recruited from a cardiology department. Four observers (two chiropractors and two chiropractic students) performed a physical examination and an extended manual examination of the spine and chest wall. Percentage agreement, Cohen's Kappa and ICC were calculated for observer pairs and overall. Musculoskeletal chest pain was diagnosed in 44.0 % of patients. Interobserver kappa values were substantial for the chiropractors and overall, and moderate for the students. For single items of the protocol, both pairs showed fair to substantial agreement regarding pain provocation tests and poor to fair agreement regarding spinal segmental dysfunction tests. Conclusions. Suspected musculoskeletal chest pain can be identified with substantial interobserver reliability using this standardized protocol if used by experienced and trained observers. Agreement for individual components of the protocol showed, however, considerable variation. Provided training of observers, the examination protocol can be used in selected patients and can be implemented in pre- and post-graduate clinical training

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the agreement of physician assistants (PAs) in the triaging of patients with Low Back Pain (LBP) based on self-reported data. Patients and methods. A cross sectional vignette study among four PAs was carried out. Vignettes (cases) were constructed including 26 factors that can be self-reported, identified in literature that have predictive value in treatment outcomes (for example red flags indicating serious underlying conditions and yellow flags indicating psychosocial factors). All vignettes were randomly assigned to the PAs who should determine what intervention would be most optimal to the patient (rehabilitation, injections, medications, surgery, primary care psychology, primary care physical therapy). PAs were allowed to advise more than one intervention. Per vignette, 3 PAs were assigned randomly to advise on intervention. Fleish kappas were calculated to determine the interrater reliability. Results. Twenty-five vignettes were judged by 3 of the 4 PAs. Per advise, Fleish kappa values varied between k=0.65 for surgery and medication to k=0.77 for rehabilitation, which can be interpreted as substantial agreement. Conclusion. Based on self-reported data provided by patients, PAs can triage patients with substantial agreement. Adding more information based on history, physical examination and imaging, may influence these outcomes. This study adds to the merit of using questionnaires for guiding clinicians in their triaging process. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

Aim:. To simplify sagittal plane spinal assessment by describing a single novel angle in the lumbar spine equivalent to the difference between pelvic incidence (PI) and lumbar lordosis (LL) and evaluate its reliability. Methods:. New sagittal modifiers in the classification of adult degenerative spinal deformity have been shown to be valid and reliable with the greatest variability being for pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL). This measurement can be simplified to a new angle (alpha) without the need to determine either PI or LL. This angle is between a line intersecting the bicoxofemoral centre and perpendicular to the L1 endplate (alpha line) and a line from the bicoxofemoral centre to the centre of the sacral endplate. Two readers graded 40 non-premarked cases twice each, approximately 1 week apart. Inter- and intra-rater variability and agreement were determined for PI-LL and alpha angle separately. Fleiss' kappa was used for reliability measures. Results:. Inter-rater kappa for PI-LL showed substantial reliability and alpha angle showed almost perfect agreement. Intra-rater kappa showed substantial reliability for PI-LL but almost perfect agreement for alpha angle across both readers. Discussion:. Alpha angle can be used as a surrogate for PI-LL and is easier and more reliable to measure. When PI=LL, alpha angle is 0, so the alpha line bisects the sacral plate. Conflict Of Interest Statement: No conflict of interest

Background. Some studies report greater repositioning error in LBP patients compared to healthy subjects with other studies showing no differences. This conflicting evidence may be due to different methodologies. A new tool, the Flexchair¯Back Balance Trainer measures consistency of lumbo-pelvic movement during visual tracking tasks which challenge the lumbo-pelvic region. This study aimed to establish the within day (WD) and between day (BD) reliability of a lumbo-pelvic tracking task using the Flexchair in healthy subjects,. Method. 22 subjects gave informed consent (10 females, 12 males (age 38.40(±9.29) Height 171.35cms (±8.07) weight 76.21kg (±18.55) Subjects completed six different tracking tasks on the Flexchair, 3 times in the first day with 2 hour of intervals between each test and once on a second and third visit with 2 days in between. Tests 1-6 are of increasing difficulty. Results. Test1 WD ICC.200, SEM ±3.65, BD ICC .565, SEM± 1.06. Test 2WD ICC .471, SEM ±4.24, BD ICC.475, SEM ±5.46. Test 3 WD ICC .366, SEM± 5.20, BD ICC .405, SEM± 5.46. Test 4 WD ICC .522 SEM ±3.06, BD ICC.483, SEM± 4.49. Test 5 WD ICC .567, SEM± 4.66, BD ICC .718, SEM± 4.47. Test 6 WD ICC .630 SEM ± 3.47, BD ICC .474 SEM± 5.60. Discussion. A substantial degree of variation exists in healthy subjects when performing a lumbo-pelvic tracking task, with poor to moderate reliability for all tasks apart from between day scores for Task 5. Further studies should be conducted on patients with LBP

A clinical diagnosis of Myofascial Pain Syndrome (MPS) requires manual palpation for the identification of at least one clinically relevant trigger point (TP). However, few comparable, high quality studies exist regarding the robustness of TP examination. Our aim was to determine the inter-observer agreement of TP examination among four examiners and whether reproducibility is influenced by examiner clinical experience. Two experienced and two inexperienced clinicians each performed a standardized palpation of the upper Trapezius musculature. Each observer was asked to judge the presents/absence of clinically relevant TP(s) using clinician global assessment (GA). A random case mix of 81 female participants was examined, 14 being asymptomatic and the remainder suffering from neck/shoulder pain. Examiners received psychomotor training and video analysis feedback provided prior to and during the study in order to improve protocol standardization. Kappa co-efficients were calculated for all possible examiner pairings. Good agreement was noted between the experienced pairing (κ= 0.63). Moderate levels of agreement were observed among the two mixed pairings (κ=0.35 and 0.47 respectively). However, poor agreement was observed for the inexperienced pairing (κ=0.22). Inter-observer agreement was not stable with the experienced pairing in particular, exhibiting a sharp decline in agreement during the latter portion of the study. Identification of clinically relevant TPs of the upper Trapezius musculature is a reproducible procedure when performed by two experienced clinicians. However, an experienced-inexperienced observer pairing can yield acceptable levels of agreement. A protracted period of data collection may be detrimental to inter-observer agreement.

Aims. To determine whether side-bending films in scoliosis are assessed for adequacy in clinical practice; and to introduce a novel method for doing so. Methods. Six surgeons and eight radiographers were invited to participate in four online surveys. The generic survey comprised erect and left and right bending radiographs of eight individuals with scoliosis, with an average age of 14.6 years. Respondents were asked to indicate whether each bending film was optimal (adequate) or suboptimal. In the first survey, they were also asked if they currently assessed the adequacy of bending films. A similar second survey was sent out two weeks later, using the same eight cases but in a different order. In the third survey, a guide for assessing bending film adequacy was attached along with the radiographs to introduce the novel T1-45B method, in which the upper endplate of T1 must tilt ≥ 45° from baseline for the study to be considered optimal. A fourth and final survey was subsequently conducted for confirmation. Results. Overall, 12 (86%) of 14 respondents did not use any criteria to assess the bending film adequacy; the remaining two each described a different invalidated method. In total, 12 (86%) of the respondents felt T1-45B was easy to learn and apply. There was fair to substantial intra-rater reliability (k = 0.25 to 0.88) which improved to fair to almost perfect (k = 0.38 to 0.88) post-introduction of the guide. Inter-rater reliability varied considerably among the rater groups but similarly increased following introduction of the guide (k. S1. = 0.19 to 0.34, k. S2. = 0.33 to 0.43 vs k. S3. = 0.49 to 0.5, k. S4. = 0.35 to 0.43). Conclusion. Many surgeons and radiographers do not assess spinal bending films for adequacy. We propose that the change in the plane of the upper endplate of T1 on side-bending can be used in this evaluation. In the T1-45B method, a change of ≥ 45° on side bending qualifies as an adequate bend effort. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):689–695

Thoracolumbar injury classification systems are not used or researched extensively in paediatric population yet. This systematic review aims to explore the validity and reliability of the two main thoracolumbar injury classification systems in the paediatric population (age ≤ 18). It also aims to explore the transferability of adult classification systems to paediatrics. The Thoracolumbar Injury Classification System (TLICS) published in 2005 and the AO Spine published in 2013 were assessed in this paper because they both provide guidance for the assessment of the severity of an injury and recommend management strategies. A literature search was conducted on the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, Ovid during the period November 2020 to December 2020 for studies looking at the reliability and validity of the TLICS and AO Spine classification systems in paediatric population. Data on validity (to what extent TLICS/ AO Spine recommended treatment matched the actual treatment) and reliability (inter-rater and intra-rater reliability) was extracted. There is an “almost perfect validity” for TLICS. There is a “strong association” between the validity of TLICS and AO Spine. The intra-rater reliability is “moderate” for TLICS and “substantial” for AO Spine. The intra-rater reliability is “substantial” for TLICS and “almost perfect” for AO Spine. The six studies show a good overall validity and reliability for the application of TLICS and AO Spine in pediatric thoracolumbar fractures. However, implication of treatment and anatomical differences of the growing spine should be explored in detail. Therefore, AO Spine can be used in absence of any other classification system for paediatrics

Aims. The aim of the study was to determine if there was a direct correlation between the pain and disability experienced by patients and size of their disc prolapse, measured by the disc’s cross-sectional area on T2 axial MRI scans. Methods. Patients were asked to prospectively complete visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores on the day of their MRI scan. All patients with primary disc herniation were included. Exclusion criteria included recurrent disc herniation, cauda equina syndrome, or any other associated spinal pathology. T2 weighted MRI scans were reviewed on picture archiving and communications software. The T2 axial image showing the disc protrusion with the largest cross sectional area was used for measurements. The area of the disc and canal were measured at this level. The size of the disc was measured as a percentage of the cross-sectional area of the spinal canal on the chosen image. The VAS leg pain and ODI scores were each correlated with the size of the disc using the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). Intraobserver reliability for MRI measurement was assessed using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). We assessed if the position of the disc prolapse (central, lateral recess, or foraminal) altered the symptoms described by the patient. The VAS and ODI scores from central and lateral recess disc prolapses were compared. Results. A total of 56 patients (mean age 41.1 years (22.8 to 70.3)) were included. A high degree of intraobserver reliability was observed for MRI measurement: single measure ICC was 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) from 0.97 to 0.99 (p < 0.001)). The PCC comparing VAS leg scores with canal occupancy for herniated disc was 0.056. The PCC comparing ODI for herniated disc was 0.070. We found 13 disc prolapses centrally and 43 lateral recess prolapses. There were no foraminal prolapses in this group. The position of the prolapse was not found to be related to the mean VAS score or ODI experienced by the patients (VAS, p = 0.251; ODI, p = 0.093). Conclusion. The results of the statistical analysis show that there is no direct correlation between the size or position of the disc prolapse and a patient’s symptoms. The symptoms experienced by patients should be the primary concern in deciding to perform discectomy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):715–720

Aims. Patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES) require emergency imaging and surgical decompression. The severity and type of symptoms may influence the timing of imaging and surgery, and help predict the patient’s prognosis. Categories of CES attempt to group patients for management and prognostication purposes. We aimed in this study to assess the inter-rater reliability of dividing patients with CES into categories to assess whether they can be reliably applied in clinical practice and in research. Methods. A literature review was undertaken to identify published descriptions of categories of CES. A total of 100 real anonymized clinical vignettes of patients diagnosed with CES from the Understanding Cauda Equina Syndrome (UCES) study were reviewed by consultant spinal surgeons, neurosurgical registrars, and medical students. All were provided with published category definitions and asked to decide whether each patient had ‘suspected CES’; ‘early CES’; ‘incomplete CES’; or ‘CES with urinary retention’. Inter-rater agreement was assessed for all categories, for all raters, and for each group of raters using Fleiss’s kappa. Results. Each of the 100 participants were rated by four medical students, five neurosurgical registrars, and four consultant spinal surgeons. No groups achieved reasonable inter-rater agreement for any of the categories. CES with retention versus all other categories had the highest inter-rater agreement (kappa 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.31); minimal agreement). There was no improvement in inter-rater agreement with clinical experience. Across all categories, registrars agreed with each other most often (kappa 0.41), followed by medical students (kappa 0.39). Consultant spinal surgeons had the lowest inter-rater agreement (kappa 0.17). Conclusion. Inter-rater agreement for categorizing CES is low among clinicians who regularly manage these patients. CES categories should be used with caution in clinical practice and research studies, as groups may be heterogenous and not comparable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):1007–1012

Introduction. The Odom's criteria are, since 1958, a widely used 4-point rating scale for assessing the clinical outcome after cervical spine surgery. Surprisingly, the Odom's criteria have never been validated. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Odom's criteria for the evaluation of surgical procedures of the cervical spine. Methods. Patients with degenerative cervical spine disease were included and divided into two groups, based on their most predominant symptom: myelopathy or radiculopathy. Reliability was assessed with inter-rater and test-retest design using a quadratic weighted Kappa coefficient. Construct validity was assessed by means of hypothesis testing with related constructs. To evaluate if the Odom's criteria could act as a global perceived effect (GPE) scale, we assessed concurrent validity by comparing the areas under the curves (AUCs) of the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) with both the Odom's criteria, as the GPE as an anchor. Results. A total of 110 patients were included in the study. Overall inter-rater reliability was k=0.77 and the test-retest reliability k=0.93. Inter-rater reliability for the radiculopathy patients was κ=0.81 and for myelopathy patients κ=0.68. More than 75% of the hypotheses were met. The AUCs showed similar characteristics between the Odom's criteria and GPE. Conclusion. The Odom's criteria meet the predefined criteria for reliability and validity. Therefore, the Odom's criteria may be used to measure surgical outcome after a cervical spine procedure. Results of previous studies that have been deemed less trustworthy, because of the use of the Odom's criteria, should be reconsidered. No conflicts of interests. No funding obtained

Thermal sensors have been used in bracing research as self-reported diaries are inaccurate. Little is known about new low-profile sensors, optimal location within a brace, locational thermal micro-climate and effect of brace lining. Our objective is to Determine an optimal temperature threshold for sensor-measured and true wear time agreement. Identify optimal sensor location. Assess all factors to determine the best sensor option for the Bracing AdoleScent Idiopathic Scoliosis (BASIS) multicentre RCT. Seven Orthotimer and five iButton (DS1925L) sensors were synchronised to record temperature at five-minute intervals. Three healthy participants donned a rigid spinal brace, embedded with both sensors across four anatomical locations (abdomen/axilla/lateral-gluteal/sacral). Universal-coordinated-time wear protocols were performed in/out-doors. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) assessed sensor-measured and true wear time agreement at thresholds 15–36oC. Optimal thresholds, determined by largest ICC estimate: Orthotimer: Abdomen=26oC, axilla=27oC, lateral-gluteal=24.5oC, sacral=22.5oC. iButton: Abdomen=26oC, axilla=27oC, lateral-gluteal=23.5oC, sacral=23.5oC. Warm-up time and error at optimal thresholds increased for moulded sensors covered with 6mm lining. Location: anterior abdominal wall. Excellent reliability and higher optimal thresholds, less likely to be exceeded by ambient temperature; not a pressure area. Sensor: iButton, longer battery life and larger memory than Orthotimer; allows recording at 10 min intervals for life of brace. Orthotimer only able to record every 30 mins, increasing error between true and measured wear time; Orthotimer needs 6-monthly data download. Threshold: 26oC is optimal threshold to balance warm-up and cool-down times for accurately measuring wear time. Sensor should not be covered by lining foam as this significantly prolongs warm-up time

Introduction. Sensory profiles classified in Low Registration, Sensory Sensitive, Sensation Avoiding and Sensation Seeking may be used in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP) to develop a more personalized treatment program. Although psychometric properties have not been studied up till now the Adult Adolescent Sensory Profile (AASP) can be used to measure sensory profiles in CLBP patients. Objectives. The study aim was to asses internal consistency, test-retest reliability, agreement and construct validity of the AASP in a CLBP population with nociplastic pain. Method. A non-experimental, cross-sectional study design was used, with two measurements with a two weeks interval. All self-reported questionnaires were used at t0 and t1 to assess outcome in comparison to the AASP and SP. Reliability was evaluated by assessing internal consistency and test-retest reliability. To assess construct validity, the a priori hypothesis on the four profiles, correlation was analyzed. Results. Ninety CLBP patients were included, with a mean duration of CLBP of 232 weeks. Internal consistency for each sensory profile, Cronbach's alpha varied from 0.91 to 0.92. Test-retest reliability varied from intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.90–0.92. Construct validity correlated positively between sensory profiles, Low Registration, Sensory Sensitive and Sensation Avoiding, and negatively with Sensation Seeking. Conclusion. The AASP is considered to be a suitable instrument for measuring sensory profiles in CLBP patients in primary care. Conflict of interest: No conflicts of interest. Source of funding: No funding obtained

Purpose of the Study. To assess the test-retest reliability, construct validity and determine the cut-off scoret of BACKonLINE™ for people with LBP. Background. Appropriate treatment for Low back pain (LBP) is vital, however patients can wait for 14–24 weeks on NHS Physiotherapy lists. Many factors contribute to LBP and initially can be due to peripheral tissue damage. However, persistent LBP is associated with amplification in pain processing in the central nervous system (central sensitisation-CS). CS often results in poorer outcomes and often requires longer management making timely assessment and appropriate management crucial. An online self-assessment and self-management tool (BACKonLINE™) for discerning between characteristics of predominantly centrally (CD) or peripherally (PD) driven LBP was developed using a Delphi study. Method. Same subject, test-retest reliability and construct validity study (two sessions). Sample of 35 volunteers with LBP. In session 1, participants completed BACKonLINE™ and validated questionnaires (Oswestry Disability Index, StartBack, Tampa scale for Kinesiophobia, Pain Anxiety Symptom Scale Short Form 20). Participants repeated the process one week later. BACKonLINE's Cut-off score was determined by plotting results against StartBack using ROC curve analysis. Results. BACKonLINE™ showed excellent test-retest reliability (ICC= 0.913; 95%CI=0.832–0.956). When assessing construct validity, the aforementioned questionnaires demonstrated moderate correlation with BACKonLINE™ (Pearson's r range= 0.42–0.67, p-value<0.005). ROC analysis determined that scores higher than 42 in BACKonLINE™ indicate CD LBP while scores ≤42 indicate PD LBP. Conclusion. The study shows that BACKonLINE™ has excellent test-retest reliability, and good construct validity within a LBP population. However, further studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted before the implementation of BACKonLINE™. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Civil Service Commission, Kuwait

Purpose of study and background. Clinical researchers use Pfirrmann classification for grading intervertebral disc degeneration radiologically. Basic researchers have access to morphology and instead use the Thompson score. The aim of this study was to assess the inter-observer reliability of both classifications, along with their correlation. Methods and Results. We obtained T2-weighted MR images of 80 human lumbar intervertebral discs with various stages of degeneration to assess the Pfirrmann-score. Then the discs were dissected midsagittally to obtain the Thompson-score. The observers were typical users of both grading systems: a spine surgeon, radiology resident, orthopaedic resident, and a basic scientist, all experts on intervertebral disc degeneration. Cohen's kappa (CK) was used to determine inter-observer reliability, and intra-class correlation (ICC) as a measure for the variation between the outcomes. For the Thompson score, the average CK was 0.366 and ICC score 0.873. The average inter-observer reliability for the Pfirrmann score was 0.214 (CK) and 0.790 (ICC). Comparing the grading systems, the intra-observer agreement was 0.240 (CK) and 0.685 (ICC). Conclusion. With substantial variation between observers, the inter-observer agreements for the Pfirrmann and Thompson grading systems were moderate. This may explain the poor relationship between radiological and clinical observations in patients and raises questions about the validity of the Pfirrmann score. The mediocre intra-observer agreement between the Pfirrmann and Thompson score shows that there is no clear definition of intervertebral disc degeneration. The field is in need for a new, objective and quantitative classification system to better define and evaluate disc degeneration. There are no conflicts of interest. Funded in part by Annafonds Netherlands and Dutch Spine Society

Background. Dynamic measurement of continuous intervertebral motion in low back pain (LBP) research in-vivo is developing. Lumbar motion parameters with the features of biomarkers are emerging and show promise for advancing understanding of personalised biometrics of LBP. However, measurement of changes over time inevitably involve error, due to subjects' natural variation and/or variation in the measurement process. Thus, intra-subject repeatability of parameters to measure changes over time should be established. Methods. Seven lumbar spine motion parameters, measured using quantitative fluoroscopy (QF), were assessed for intra-subject repeatability: Intervertebral range-of-motion (IV-RoM), laxity, motion sharing inequality (MSI), motion sharing variability (MSV), flexion translation and flexion disc height. Intra-subject reliability (ICC) and minimal detectable change (MDC95) of baseline and 6-week follow-up measurements were obtained for 109 healthy volunteers (54 coronal and 55 sagittal). Results. Reliability was substantial to excellent for repeated measurements of IV-RoM, laxity, flexion translation and disc height during recumbent passive motion (ICC:0.69–0.95) and during active weight-bearing motion (ICC:0.64–0.92). MSI was moderate to excellent across both positions (ICC:0.43–0.91). The reliability of MSV was generally poorer for both positions (0.14–0.65). For all parameters, measurement error exceeded 42%. Conclusion. Recumbent IV-RoM, laxity and disc height demonstrated the best repeatability at 6-weeks suggesting they may be better outcome moderators in clinical studies than other variables. However measurement errors for all parameters were higher than the minimal changes of interest. These results are limited to healthy controls and should be regarded as reference values. Similar studies in CNSLBP patients are required. No conflicts of interest. Sources of Funding: Dr Rebecca Hemming received a Seedcorn Bursary from the Cardiff Institute of Tissue Engineering and Repair (CITER) and Professor Alan Breen received a project grant from the European Chiropractors Union Research Fund (ECURF)

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of using MRI scans to calculate the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). Methods. A total of 100 patients were retrospectively included in the study. The SINS score was calculated from each patient’s MRI and CT scans by two consultant musculoskeletal radiologists (reviewers 1 and 2) and one consultant spinal surgeon (reviewer 3). In order to avoid potential bias in the assessment, MRI scans were reviewed first. Bland-Altman analysis was used to identify the limits of agreement between the SINS scores from the MRI and CT scans for the three reviewers. Results. The limit of agreement between the SINS score from the MRI and CT scans for the reviewers was -0.11 for reviewer 1 (95% CI 0.82 to -1.04), -0.12 for reviewer 2 (95% CI 1.24 to -1.48), and -0.37 for reviewer 3 (95% CI 2.35 to -3.09). The use of MRI tended to increase the score when compared with that using the CT scan. No patient having their score calculated from MRI scans would have been classified as stable rather than intermediate or unstable when calculated from CT scans, potentially leading to suboptimal care. Conclusion. We found that MRI scans can be used to calculate the SINS score reliably, compared with the score from CT scans. The main difference between the scores derived from MRI and CT was in defining the type of bony lesion. This could be made easier by knowing the site of the primary tumour when calculating the score, or by using inverted T1-volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination MRI to assess the bone more reliably, similar to using CT. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):971–975

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate rasterstereography of the spine as a diagnostic test for adolescent idiopathic soliosis (AIS), and to compare its results with those obtained using a scoliometer.

Aims

Developmental cervical spinal stenosis (DcSS) is a well-known predisposing factor for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) but there is a lack of consensus on its definition. This study aims to define DcSS based on MRI, and its multilevel characteristics, to assess the prevalence of DcSS in the general population, and to evaluate the presence of DcSS in the prediction of developing DCM.

Background. Pain with radiation to the leg is a common presentation in back pain patients. Radiating leg pain is either referred pain or radicular, commonly described as sciatica. Clinically distinguishing between these types of leg pain is recognized as difficult but important for management purposes. The aim of this study was to investigate inter-therapist agreement when diagnosing referred or radicular pain. Methods. Thirty-six primary care consulters with low back-related leg pain were assessed and diagnosed as referred or radicular leg pain by one of six trained experienced musculoskeletal physiotherapists. Assessments were videoed, excluding any diagnosis discourse, and viewed by a second physiotherapist who made an independent diagnosis. Therapists rated their confidence with diagnosis and reasons for their decision. Data was summarized using percentage agreements and kappa (K) coefficients with two sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results. The therapists assessing and therapists watching the video both diagnosed radicular pain in 25 of the 36 patients. Agreement was 72% with fair inter-rater reliability (K = 0.35, 95% CI 0.07, 0.63, p<0.05). Mean confidence in diagnosis was 87% for radicular pain and 83% for referred pain. In the subgroup of patients where therapists' confidence in diagnosis was ≥ 80% (n=28), agreement was 86% with substantial reliability (K = 0.65, 95% CI 0.37, 0.93 p<0.001). Conclusion. Reliability was fair among therapists when diagnosing back-related leg pain. This concurs with current opinion that differentiating between types of back-related leg pain can be difficult. However, when confidence in clinical diagnosis is high, levels of agreement and reliability indices improve substantially

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and characteristics of instrumentation failure (IF) after total en bloc spondylectomy (TES), and to analyze risk factors for IF.