Umeå University's logo

umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
How reliable is the distinction between thoracolumbar AO type A3 and A4 fractures?: a systematic literature review
Faculty of Medicine, Hashemite University, Zarqaa, Jordan.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Diagnostics and Intervention. Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Orthopaedics.
Show others and affiliations
2024 (English)In: European spine journal, ISSN 0940-6719, E-ISSN 1432-0932, Vol. 33, no 10, p. 3663-3676Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose: The AOSpine classification divides thoracolumbar burst fractures into A3 and A4 fractures; nevertheless, past research has found inconsistent interobserver reliability in detecting those two fracture patterns. This systematic analysis aims to synthesize data on the reliability of discriminating between A3 and A4 fractures.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science for studies reporting the inter- and intra-observer reliability of detecting thoracolumbar AO A3 and A4 fractures using computed tomography (CT). The search spanned 2013 to 2023 and included both primarily reliability and observational comparative studies. We followed the PRISMA guidelines and used the modified COSMIN checklist to assess the studies' quality. Kappa coefficient (k) values were categorized according to Landis and Koch, from slight to excellent.

Results: Of the 396 identified studies, nine met the eligibility criteria; all were primarily reliability studies except one observational study. Interobserver k values for A3/A4 fractures varied widely among studies (0.19-86). The interobserver reliability was poor in two studies, fair in one study, moderate in four studies, and excellent in two studies. Only two studies reported intra-observer reliability, showing fair and excellent agreement. The included studies revealed significant heterogeneity in study design, sample size, and interpretation methods.

Conclusion: Considerable variability exists in interobserver reliability for distinguishing A3 and A4 fractures from slight to excellent agreement. This variability might be attributed to methodological heterogeneity among studies, limitations of reliability analysis, or diagnostic pitfalls in differentiating between A3 and A4. Most observational studies comparing the outcome of A3 and A4 fractures do not report interobserver agreement, and this should be considered when interpreting their results.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Nature, 2024. Vol. 33, no 10, p. 3663-3676
Keywords [en]
AOSpine classification, Burst fractures, Interobserver reliability, Systematic review, Thoracolumbar fractures
National Category
Orthopaedics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-228013DOI: 10.1007/s00586-024-08381-9ISI: 001272289200001PubMedID: 39030322Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85198936148OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-228013DiVA, id: diva2:1885175
Available from: 2024-07-22 Created: 2024-07-22 Last updated: 2024-10-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Åkerstedt, Josefin

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Åkerstedt, JosefinAly, Mohamed M.
By organisation
Department of Diagnostics and InterventionOrthopaedics
In the same journal
European spine journal
Orthopaedics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 306 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf