Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1990; 29(01): 12-22
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634759
Statistical Analysis
Schattauer GmbH

Comparative Diagnostic Performance of Three Radiological Procedures for the Detection of Lumbar Disk Herniation

J. W. P. F. Kardaun
1   Dept Health Statistics, Central Bureau of Statistics Voorburg, The Netherlands
,
O. J. W. F. Kardaun
2   Mathematical Institute, Groningen University, Groningen, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Literature data on the diagnostic performance of phlebography, myelography, and CT scan applied to patients with suspected lumbar disk herniation (LDH) are analyzed to extract maximal information about their relative discriminatory power. Seventeen papers meeting the selection criteria contain 13 reports on myelography, 6 on phlebography, and 5 on CT. Sensitivity and specificity are considered simultaneously in logistic ROC space. The reports of each procedure are effectively summarized by a linear regression in logistic ROC space. Taking into account the individual confidence regions of sensitivity and specificity obtained from each report, the slope of the regression line is estimated by Generalized Least Squares (ML). This approach also allows to test the assumption of a common odds ratio (i.e., of a unit slope). The simply to determine common odds ratio as well as the perpendicular distance between the origin and the regression line (as a good approximation to the area under the ROC curve) are used as a measure for the discriminatory power of the procedures. For CT, homogeneity of sensitivity turns out to be much more likely than a common odds ratio. Based on the available, retrospective data, phlebography appears to have the highest performance in visualizing an LDH, followed by myelography and CT.

Key-Words

Lumbar Disk Herniation - Myelography - Phlebography - CT - ROC analysis - Diagnostic Test Evaluation

* The views and assertions in this article are those of the authors. In particular, they are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of The Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics.


 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Van Romunde LKJ, Rouwens T. Trends in frequentie van ziekten in Nederland. In: Grobbee DE, Hofman A. eds. Epidemiologie van Ziekten in Nederland (in Dutch). Utrecht: Wetenschappelijke Uitgeverij Bunge; 1989: 1-16.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Weber H. Lumbar disc herniation - a controlled, prospective study with ten years of observation. Spine 1983; 08: 131-40.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hampton AO, Robinson JM. Roentgenographic demonstration of rupture of the intravertebral disk into the spinal canal after injection of Lipiodol. AJR 1936; 36: 782-803.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kardaun JWPF, Schipper J, Braakrnan R. CT, myelography and phlebography in the detection of lumbar disk herniations: An analysis of the literature. Arn J Neuroradiol 1989; 10: 1111-22.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Einarson TR, McGhan WF, Bootman JL, Sabers DL. Meta-analysis: quantitative integration of independent research results. Am J Hosp Pharm 1985; 42: 1957-64.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jenicek M. Meta-analysis in medicine - where we are and where we want to go. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 35-44.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lotz PR, Seeger JF, Gabrielsen TO. Prospective comparison of epidural venography and iophendylate myelography in the diagnosis of herniated lumbar disks. Radiology 1980; 134: 127-32.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Schipper J, Kardaun JWPF, Braakman R, Van Dongen KJ, Blaauw G. Lumbar disk herniation: Diagnosis with CT or Myelography?. Radiology 1987; 165: 227-31.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hudgins WR. The predictive value of myelography in the diagnosis of ruptured lumbar discs. J Neurosurgery 1970; 32: 152-62.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Drasin GF, Daffner RH, Sexton RF. et al. Epidural venography: diagnosis of herniated lumbar intervertebral disc and other disease of the epidural space. AIR 1976; 126: 1010-16.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 MacNab I, St. Louis EL, Grabias SL. et al. Selective ascending Iumbosacral venography in the assessment of lumbar-disc herniation. J Bone Joint Surg 1976; 58A: 1093-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Miller MH, Handel SF, Coan JD. Transfemoral lumbar epidural venography. AJR 1978; 126: 1003-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mohsenipour I, Twerdy K, Pirker E. Eine Gegeniiberstellung Riintgenbild - Operationsbefund bei Iurnbalen Band-scheibenerkrankungen. R6Fo 1977; 127: 540-3.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Moringlane JR, Voigt K, Seeger W. Vergleich myelographischer und intraoperativer Befunde beirn Iumbalen Bandscheibenvorfall. Neurochirurgia 1977; 20: 199-208.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cook PL, Wise K. A correlation of the surgical and radiculographic findings in lumbar disc herniation. Clin Radiol 1979; 30: 671-82.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Meyenhorst GCH. Transfemoral Epidural Double-Catheter Venography in the Diagnosis of Lumbar Disc Herniation (Thesis). Nijmegen (Netherlands: Catholic University; 1979
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Thijssen HOM, Rombouts JJM, Walder HAD. Diagnostic accuracy of lumbar myelography in the detection of lumbar disk herniations. Diagn Imaging 1980; 49: 188-92.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Claussen C, Grumme T, Treisch J, Lochner B, Katzner E. Die Diagnostik des lumbalen Bandscheibenvorfalls. RöFo 1982; 136: 1-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fries JW, Abodeely DA, Vijungco JG. et al. Computed tomography of herniated and extruded nucleus pulposus. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1982; 06: 874-87.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Haughton VM, Eldevik OP, Magnaes B. et al. A prospective comparison of computed tomography and myelography in the diagnosis of herniated lumbar disks. Radiology 1982; 142: 103-10.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jepson K, Nada A, Rymaszewski L. The role of radiculography in the management of lesions of the lumbar disc. J Bone Joint Surg 1982; 648: 405-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Moufarrij NA, Hardy Jr RW, Weinstein MA. Computed tomographic, myelographic and operative findings in patients with suspected herniated lumbar discs. Neurosurgery 1983; 12: 184-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Valat JP, Gatti P, Saindelle A. Phlebographie lombaire. Apport au diagnostic des lombosciatiques d’origine discale. Sem Hôp Paris 1984; 60: 539-42.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kampmann H, Schroedl P, Spranger M. Diagnostik Iurnbaler Bandscheibenvorfälle durch Computertornographie. Eine klinische Vergleichsstudie zwischen myelographischen, computertornographischen und operativen Untersuchungsergebnissen von 158 Patienten. Röntgenbllitter 1985; 38: 387-91.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Swets JA. Indices of discrimination or diagnostic accuracy: ROC and implied models. Psych Bull 1986; 99: 100-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine 1978; 08: 283-98.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lusted LB. Introduction to Medical Decision Making. Springfield III: CC Thomas, Pub; 1968
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Wissenschaftliche Tabellen Geigy, Teilband Statistik (8. Aufl.). Basel: Ciba Geigy; 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Koopman PAR. Sensitiviteit, specificiteit, aannernelijkheidsverhouding en voorspellende waarde van diagnostische testen (in Dutch). Kwantitatieve Methoden 1983; 09: 39-57.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Green DM, Swets JA. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Kriegler Publ Comp; 1974
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Johnson NL, Kotz S. Distributions in Statistics; Continuous Univariate Distributions 2. New York: Wiley & Sons; 1970
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Hanley JA. The robustness of the “binormal” assumptions used in fitted ROC curves. Med Decis Making 1988; 08: 197-203.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959; 22: 719-48.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic Research; Principles and Quantitative Methods. Belmont Calif: Wadsworth Inc; 1982
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Vol 1: The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Lyon: IARC; 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Begg CB, Greenes RA. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics 1983; 39: 207-15.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Howe J, Frymoyer JW. The effects of questionnaire design on the determination of end results in lumbar spinal surgery. Spine 1985; 10: 304-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Bell GR, Rothman RH, Booth RE. et al. A study of computer assisted tomography in the diagnosis of herniated disk and spinal stenosis. Spine 1984; 09: 552-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Modic MT, Masaryk T, Boumphrey F, Goormastic M, Bell G. Lumbar herniated disk disease and canal stenosis: prospective evaluation by surface coil MR, CT, and myelography. AJR 1986; 147: 757-65.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Esperen JO, Kosteljanetz M, Halaburt H, Miletic T. Predictive value of radiculography in patients with lumbago-sciatica. A prospective study. Acta neurochir 1984; 73: 213-21.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 1987; 06: 411-23.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Bedrick EJ. Estimating the variance of empirical logits and contrasts in empirical log probabilities. Biometrics 1984; 40: 805-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Houwelingen vanJC, Cessie S. Logistic regression; a review. Statistica Neerlandica 1988; 42: 215-32.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 SAS User’s Guide; Statistics. Cary NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1985
    Google Scholar