J Knee Surg 2018; 31(03): 247-253
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1602249
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Inter- and Intraobserver Reliabilities of Four Different Radiographic Grading Scales of Osteoarthritis of the Knee Joint

Özkan Köse
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Health Sciences, Antalya Education and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
,
Baver Acar
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Health Sciences, Antalya Education and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
,
Fatif Çay
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Health Sciences, Antalya Education and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
,
Baris Yilmaz
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Health Sciences, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Ferhat Güler
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Health Sciences, Antalya Education and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
,
Halil Yalçın Yüksel
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Health Sciences, Antalya Education and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

27 June 2016

09 March 2017

Publication Date:
01 May 2017 (eFirst)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities of four different radiographic grading scale of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee joint, namely, Kellgren–Lawrence (KL), Ahlback, Brandt, and OA Research Society International (OARSI). One consultant orthopaedic surgeon and one rheumatologist who were familiar with these OA grading scales participated in the study. Radiological assessments were performed in random order by each observer on two separate occasions, at least 2 weeks apart. K-statistics were used to establish a relative level of agreement between the observers for the two readings and between separate readings by the same observer. A total of 140 patients (53 males and 87 females) with a mean age of 61.2 years (range, 50–72 years) were included in the study. Intraobserver reliability for KL was substantial for observer A (κ: 0.753) and moderate for observer B (κ: 0.573). Interobserver reliability for KL was moderate for both observers (κ: 0.499 and 0.458, respectively). Intraobserver reliability for Ahlback was substantial for observer A (κ: 0.768) and moderate for observer B (κ: 0.561). Interobserver reliability for Ahlback was fair for both observers (κ: 0.365 and 0.204, respectively). Intraobserver reliability for Brandt was substantial for observer A (κ: 0.741) and moderate (κ: 0.425) for observer B. Interobserver reliability for Brandt was fair for both observers (κ: 0.308 and κ: 0.246, respectively). Intraobserver reliability for OARSI was substantial for observer A (κ: 0.792) and moderate for observer B (κ: 0.508). Interobserver reliability for OARSI was moderate for observer A (κ: 0.425) and slight for observer B (κ: 0.175). None of the studied OA grading scales showed acceptable reliability (κ > 0.80). The evaluation of patients with OA should not be dependent on radiographic findings alone; clinical findings should also guide the treatment and follow-up.