Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011 Mar 23;19(5):550–556. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2011.01.023

Responsiveness to change and reliability of measurement of radiographic joint space width in osteoarthritis of the knee: A systematic review

William M Reichmann 1,2, Jean Francis Maillefert 3, David J Hunter 4,5, Jeffrey N Katz 1,6,7, Philip G Conaghan 8, Elena Losina 1,2
PMCID: PMC3095747  NIHMSID: NIHMS280673  PMID: 21396469

Abstract

Objective

The goal of this systematic review was to report the responsiveness to change and reliability of conventional radiographic joint space width (JSW) measurement.

Method

We searched the PubMed and Embase databases using the following search criteria: (osteoarthritis [MeSH]) AND (knee) AND (x-ray OR radiography OR diagnostic imaging OR radiology OR disease progression) AND (joint space OR JSW or disease progression). We assessed responsiveness by calculating the standardized response mean (SRM). We assessed reliability using intra- and inter-reader intra-class correlation (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). Random-effects models were used to pool results from multiple studies. Results were stratified by study duration, design, techniques of obtaining radiographs, and measurement method.

Results

We identified 998 articles using the search terms. Of these, 32 articles (43 estimates) reported data on responsiveness of JSW measurement and 24 (50 estimates) articles reported data on measures of reliability. The overall pooled SRM was 0.33 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.41). Responsiveness of change in JSW measurement was improved substantially in studies of greater than 2 years duration (0.57). Further stratifying this result in studies of greater than two years duration, radiographs obtained with the knee in a flexed position yielded an SRM of 0.71. Pooled intra-reader ICC was estimated at 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.00) and the intra-reader CV estimated at 3.0 (95% CI: 2.0, 4.0). Pooled inter-reader ICC was estimated at 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.99) and the inter-reader CV estimated at 3.4% (95% CI: 1.3%, 5.5%).

Conclusions

Measurement of JSW obtained from radiographs in persons with knee is reliable. These data will be useful to clinicians who are planning RCTs where the change in minimum JSW is the outcome of interest.

Keywords: knee osteoarthritis, x-ray, radiograph, responsiveness, reliability, standardized response mean

Introduction

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a painful and disabling disease for many with 12% of adults 60 years of age or older having symptomatic knee OA1. As the population ages, the prevalence of knee OA continues to rise. Currently, available pharmacologic regimens for knee OA focus on alleviating pain, but do not slow the structural progression of disease2. Disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADS) are in the early developmental stages, and thus it is important to quantify the expected rate of structural progression to facilitate trial planning.

Minimum joint space width (JSW) is commonly used to assess knee OA progression3. It has been shown to be sensitive to change4, 5 and change in the minimum JSW has been the primary outcome for previous DMOAD trials4–7. An analytic literature synthesis by Emrani et al in 2008 showed an interaction between study design and radiographic technique was associated with annual change in minimum JSW. The greatest annual change was seen in observational studies that used a semi-flexed technique without fluoroscopy, while the smallest annual change was see in randomized controlled trials with the same technique5.

The objective of this paper was to update results of Emrani et al by adding the most recent studies and report responsiveness of JSW in terms of standardized response mean (SRM). The SRM is defined as the mean change divided by the standard deviation of change and can be interpreted as the number of standard deviations of change, which will be useful for planning future DMOAD trials. We also report pooled estimates of reliability, which include inter- and intra-reader intra-class correlations (ICCs) and coefficients of variation (CVs).

Method

Eligibility criteria

Studies were eligible for our analyses if they satisfied all four requirements of the PICO (Patients Interventions Controls Outcomes). To be included in the review, the study population had to include patients with knee OA followed over time with radiograph-based measures of JSW. We included studies that reported responsiveness (mean change/standard deviation of change or SRM) or reliability measures (inter- or intra-reader intra-class correlation or coefficient of variation). If the study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) then we used data from the control group. This was done to ensure quantification of the natural history of responsiveness of radiographs in those with knee OA. Studies were not limited by publication date (latest search: April 2009) and we included studies that were published in English, French, Spanish, and German.

Information sources and search

We searched the PubMed and Embase databases using the following search criteria: (osteoarthritis [MeSH]) AND (knee) AND (x-ray OR radiography OR diagnostic imaging OR radiology OR disease progression) AND (joint space OR JSW or disease progression).

Study selection

All abstracts were read by one reviewer. The reviewer obtained full-length articles of all abstracts that were considered as probably relevant or of unknown relevance. These articles were subsequently reviewed and data extracted into a data abstraction form. Abstracts of all potentially relevant references in the full-text review were obtained if probably relevant or of unknown relevance.

Studies were excluded if they did not report change in minimum JSW in the knee or if they did not provide a measure of reliability in measuring minimum JSW.

Data items

We abstracted the following study characteristics from each article: study design, radiographic technique, use of fluoroscopy, method of measurement, follow-up time, whether readers were blinded to the order of the radiographic studies, and sample size. Study design was classified as RCT or observational and radiographic technique was categorized as extended view or flexed (includes semi-flexed). Method of measuring minimum JSW was performed manually or using a computer. Follow-up time was categorized as 1-year or less, 1–2 years, or greater than 2 years.

Summary measures

The principal summary measure for our review is the standardized response mean (SRM). In articles that reported the SRM directly, we abstracted the reported value. In articles that only reported mean change and standard deviation of change, we calculated the SRM from the two reported measures. Inter- and intra-reader reliability measures (ICC, CV) were also abstracted from the articles.

Synthesis of results

Random-effects models were built to obtain pooled estimates for the SRM and reliability measures across studies adjusting for variability across the studies. Heterogeneity in the estimates was assessed using I-squared, which assesses the percentage of variation across studies that was due to between study variation. Analyses were performed for all studies that reported these measures and by study characteristics, including study design, radiographic approach, radiographic technique, use of fluoroscopy, method of measurement, and follow-up time. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were derived for all estimates.

Results

Study selection

We identified 866 articles using our electronic search and another 132 were identified manually for a total of 998 articles. Two hundred eighty-five articles met the initial abstract screening inclusion criteria and the full-text article was obtained and read for further screening. Of these, 32 articles reported responsiveness results (43 estimates) and 24 articles reported reliability results. Of the 24 articles reporting reliability results, the inter-reader ICC was reported eight times, the intra-reader ICC 17 times, the inter-reader CV six times, and the intra-reader CV 19 times (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flow chart of the screening process for articles included in the systematic review.

Study characteristics

Of the 43 estimates on responsiveness, 21 (49%) estimates were obtained from studies with follow-up of one year or less, 10 (23%) estimates were derived from studies with follow-up of 1–2 years, and 12 (28%) came from studies with greater than two years of follow-up. The mean sample size was 100 (standard deviation=86). Sixteen estimates (37%) were obtained from studies that used a radiographic approach with the knee fully extended and 27 (63%) from studies that had the knee in flexion. Fluoroscopy was used for 23 (53%) of the estimates and computerized methods of measuring the minimum joint space width was used for 24 of the estimates (56%). Nineteen (44%) of the estimates came from RCTs. Of the 43 estimates, only 21 (49%) disclosed whether the readers were blinded to the sequence of the radiographs. Of these 21 estimates, 19 (90%) came from studies that used blinded readers. Study characteristics for all 32 studies are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Study Characteristics of the manuscripts reviewed for responsiveness

Author, year (Ref.) Study Type Sample Size Follow-up Months Radiographic Approach Method of Measurement Delta (SD)
Ayral et al. 19968 Cohort 41 12 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual 0.40 (1.00)
Ravaud et al. 19969 Cohort 55 12 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual 0.42 (1.11)
Listrat et al. 199710 RCT 17 12 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual 0.70 (1.20)
Pavelka et al. 20004 RCT 139 60 Extension with fluoroscopy Manual 0.42 (0.94)
Mazzuca et al. 20016 Cohort 402 31.60 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual 0.37 (1.25)
Reginster et al. 20017 RCT 106 36 Extension with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.40 (0.92)
Gandy et al. 200211 Cohort 11 37 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual 0.21 (0.37)
Miyazaki et al. 200212 Cohort 74 72 Flexion without fluoroscopy Manual 1.40 (1.20)
Boegard et al. 200313 Cohort 50 25 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual 0.06 (0.45)
Mazzuca et al. 200314 Cohort 52 14 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.09 (0.31)
52 14 Flexion without fluoroscopy Manual −0.09 (0.66)
Pessis et al. 200315 Cohort 20 12 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual 0.00 (0.60)
20 12 Extension with fluoroscopy Manual 0.10 (0.90)
Sugiyama et al. 200316 Cohort 110 48 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.53 (0.43)
Vignon et al. 200317 Cohort 58 24 Extension with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.17 (0.75)
58 24 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.24 (0.50)
Pavelka et al. 200418 RCT 89 24 Extension with fluoroscopy Manual 0.40 (0.79)
Pham et al. 200419 RCT 79 12 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual 0.21 (0.59)
69 12 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual 0.12 (0.32)
Pham et al. 200420 RCT 277 12 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual 0.09 (0.55)
Uebelhart et al. 200421 RCT 76 12 Extension without fluoroscopy Computerized 0.32 (1.11)
Brandt et al. 200522 RCT 180 30 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual 0.45 (0.70)
Conrozier et al. 200523 Cohort 96 12 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.19 (0.48)
Michel et al. 200524 RCT 150 24 Flexion without fluoroscopy Computerized 0.07 (0.56)
Spector et al. 200525 RCT 98 12 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.12 (0.42)
Bingham et al. 200626 RCT 269 24 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.13 (1.08)
280 24 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.09 (1.31)
Cline et al. 200627 RCT 112 9.84 Flexion without fluoroscopy Computerized 0.00 (0.53)
85 11.76 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.12 (0.42)
99 8.16 Flexion without fluoroscopy Computerized −0.07 (0.63)
Mikesky et al. 200628 RCT 60 30 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual 0.54 (0.70)
Botha-Scheepers et al. 200729 Cohort 122 24 Flexion without fluoroscopy Computerized 0.21 (0.52)
Krzeski et al. 200730 RCT 71 12 Extension with fluoroscopy N/A 0.14 (0.53)
Nevitt et al. 200731 Cohort 53 37 Flexion without fluoroscopy Computerized 0.43 (0.66)
Sharif et al. 200732 Cohort 115 60 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual 0.18 (0.93)
Le Graverand et al. 200833 Cohort 62 12 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.22 (0.41)
62 12 Flexion without fluoroscopy Computerized −0.01 (0.46)
Mazzuca et al. 200834 Cohort 27 12 Flexion without fluoroscopy Computerized 0.25 (0.54)
27 12 Flexion without fluoroscopy Computerized 0.02 (0.40)
47 12 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.16 (0.37)
47 12 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computerized −0.01 (0.51)
Gensburger et al. 200935 Cohort 81 48 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.32 (0.76)
Kahan et al. 200936 RCT 313 12 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computerized 0.31 (0.71)
Open in a new tab

RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial

Delta: Change in minimum joint space width from baseline to follow-up (measured in millimeters)

SD: Standard deviation of delta

Of the eight estimates evaluating the inter-reader ICC, four (50%) used a fully extended radiographic approach, four (50%) used fluoroscopy, and 7 (88%) measured the joint space manually. The mean sample size in these studies was 110 (standard deviation = 110).

Of the 17 estimates evaluating the intra-reader ICC, 6 (35%) used a fully extended radiographic approach, eight (47%) used fluoroscopy, and nine (53%) measured the joint space manually. The mean sample size in these studies was 80 (standard deviation = 88).

Of the six estimates evaluating the inter-reader CV, three (50%) used a fully extended radiographic approach, six (100%) used fluoroscopy, and six (100%) measured the joint space manually. The mean sample size in these studies was 120 (standard deviation = 99).

Of the 19 estimates evaluating the intra-reader CV, six (32%) used a fully extended radiographic approach, 14 (74%) used fluoroscopy, and 11 (58%) measured the joint space manually. The mean sample size was 43 (standard deviation = 38).

Synthesis of responsiveness results

The I-squared value for the 43 estimates was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.86) indicating substantial between study variation. The I-squared values are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Results of random-effects pooling for studies that reported estimates of responsiveness by different study characteristics

Number of Estimates I-squared (95% CI) SRM (95% CI)
Overall 43 0.82 (0.76, 0.86) 0.33 (0.26, 0.41)
Knee Flexion
 Extended 16 0.19 (0.00, 0.55) 0.32 (0.26, 0.37)
 Flexed 27 0.88 (0.84, 0.91) 0.34 (0.22, 0.45)
Fluoroscopy
 Fluoro 23 0.83 (0.76,0.88) 0.38 (0.27, 0.48)
 No Fluoro 20 0.79 (0.69 0.86) 0.28 (0.17, 0.39)
Measurement Method
 Manual 18 0.80 (0.70, 0.87) 0.38 (0.26, 0.50)
 Computerized 24 0.84 (0.77, 0.89) 0.31 (0.20, 0.41)
Study Type
 RCT 19 0.82 (0.73, 0.88) 0.30 (0.20, 0.40)
 Cohort 24 0.82 (0.74, 0.87) 0.36 (0.24, 0.49)
Follow-up Time
 1-year or less 21 0.56 (0.27, 0.73) 0.24 (0.15, 0.32)
 1–2 years 10 0.80 (0.63, 0.89) 0.25 (0.13, 0.37)
 Greater than 2 years 12 0.88 (0.81, 0.93) 0.57 (0.39, 0.75)
Reader blinded to order of radiographs
 Yes 19 0.76 (0.63, 0.85) 0.30 (0.19, 0.40)
 No 2 0.59 (0.00, 0.90) 0.55 (0.33, 0.76)
 Unknown 22 0.85 (0.78, 0.89) 0.35 (0.23, 0.46)
Knee Flexion by Follow-up Time
 Extended/1-year or less 9 0.00 (0.00, 0.63) 0.26 (0.19, 0.34)
 Extended/1–2 years 2 0.61 (0.00, 0.91) 0.38 (0.10, 0.65)
 Extended/Greater than 2 years 5 0.32 (0.00, 0.74) 0.34 (0.24, 0.44)
 Flexed/1-year or less 12 0.68 (0.42, 0.83) 0.19 (0.06, 0.32)
 Flexed/1–2 years 8 0.82 (0.65, 0.90) 0.22 (0.08, 0.36)
 Flexed/Greater than 2 years 7 0.88 (0.78, 0.94) 0.71 (0.44, 0.98)
Fluoroscopy by Follow-up Time
 Fluoro/1-year or less 9 0.33 (0.00, 0.69) 0.29 (0.18, 0.39)
 Fluoro/1–2 years 7 0.81 (0.62, 0.91) 0.29 (0.14, 0.44)
 Fluoro/Greater than 2 years 7 0.87 (0.75, 0.93) 0.58 (0.36, 0.80)
 No Fluoro/1-year or less 12 0.61 (0.28, 0.79) 0.21 (0.10, 0.32)
 No Fluoro/1–2 years 3 0.82 (0.45, 0.94) 0.15 (−0.13, 0.42)
 No Fluoro/Greater than 2 years 5 0.89 (0.78, 0.95) 0.56 (0.24, 0.87)
Measurement Method by Follow-up Time
 Manual/1-year or less 8 0.20 (0.00, 0.63) 0.28 (0.17, 0.38)
 Manual/1–2 years 2 0.92 (0.73, 0.98) 0.19 (−0.44, 0.82)
 Manual/Greater than 2 years 8 0.87 (0.77, 0.93) 0.51 (0.31, 0.71)
 Computerized/1-year or less 12 0.68 (0.42, 0.83) 0.21 (0.08, 0.33)
 Computerized/1–2 years 8 0.78 (0.56, 0.89) 0.26 (0.13, 0.38)
 Computerized/Greater than 2 years 4 0.90 (0.77, 0.96) 0.68 (0.31, 1.06)
Study Type by Follow-up Time
 RCT/1-year or less 10 0.60 (0.19, 0.80) 0.21 (0.11, 0.32)
 RCT/1–2 years 5 0.87 (0.72, 0.94) 0.24 (0.07, 0.41)
 RCT/Greater than 2 years 4 0.51 (0.00, 0.84) 0.56 (0.41, 0.70)
 Cohort/1-year or less 11 0.51 (0.03, 0.75) 0.26 (0.13, 0.40)
 Cohort/1–2 years 5 0.69 (0.20, 0.88) 0.26, (0.06, 0.46)
 Cohort/Greater than 2 years 8 0.92 (0.86, 0.95) 0.57 (0.30, 0.85)
Open in a new tab

The random-effects analysis yielded an overall pooled SRM for the 43 estimates of 0.33 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.41). The pooled SRM was similar when the analysis was stratified by radiographic approach, the use of fluoroscopy, measurement method, and study type. Follow-up time was related to the magnitude of the SRM. Estimates derived from studies with one year or less and 1–2 years of follow-up had similar responsiveness (0.24 and 0.25 respectively), while estimates coming from studies with greater than two years follow-up had an SRM of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.39, 0.75). Similar effects of follow-up time are shown when use of fluoroscopy, measurement method, and study type were stratified by follow-up time. However, when radiographic approach was stratified by follow-up time, estimates derived from studies that used a flexion-based radiographic approach and had greater than two years of follow-up time had a higher SRM of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.44, 0.98).

Synthesis of reliability results

Results of random-effects pooling of the reliability estimates showed good inter- and intra-reader reliability for measuring the minimum joint space width. The 8 estimates of inter-reader ICC produced an estimate of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.99), while the 17 estimates of intra-reader ICC produced an estimate of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.00). Six estimates for the inter-reader CV produced an estimate of 3.4% (95% CI: 1.3%, 5.5%) and 19 estimates for the intra-reader CV produced an estimate of 3.0% (95% CI: 2.0%, 4.0%).

Discussion

We performed an analytic systematic review of the responsiveness and reliability of knee radiographs when measuring the minimum joint space width. We analyzed responsiveness using the standardized response mean (SRM). This measure can be interpreted as the number of standard deviations of change. The overall SRM was 0.33 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.41). Follow-up time was the main study characteristic that was related to responsiveness. Studies with follow-up times greater than two years showed greater responsiveness (SRM=0.57; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.75). It is critical to note that studies with a follow-up of 1 year or shorter showed a responsiveness of 0.24. This limitation of the radiographic technique means that to adequately power a study to demonstrate change over this short interval will require much larger sample sizes. Studies that used a flexed view and had greater than two years of follow-up showed the greatest responsiveness (SRM=0.71; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.98). Based upon this literature there does appear to be some advantage to standardized positioning and fluoroscopy with slight improvements in responsiveness. Despite what one may have expected there does not appear to be any advantage in computerized measurement of JSW over manual measures. In studies with greater than two years of follow-up, the responsiveness was higher for those that used computerized methods (0.68) compared to those that used manual methods (0.51). However, the 95% confidence intervals substantially overlap due to substantial variability in these estimates (Table 3).

The reliability of measuring minimum JSW provided to be excellent with pooled ICCs ranging from 0.91 to 0.99 and pooled CVs ranging from 1.5 to 5.8. Radiographic method, use of fluoroscopy, and measurement method did not affect reliability albeit the majority of the estimates come from different studies with no direct study comparison.

Our findings complement the work of Emrani et al. who published a systematic review in 2008 on the change in minimum JSW. While they found effects of radiographic approach and study type, they also analyzed the crude change in minimum JSW rather than the SRM. They also found that increased follow-up time was inversely associated with change in minimum JSW, while we found that increasing the follow-up time increased the responsiveness of radiographs to change. This difference may be due to differences in definition of primary outcomes and additional assumption of linearity of change that Emrani et al used in their analysis5.

A major strength of this study is that it is the first literature synthesis to summarize responsiveness in terms of the SRM. These data will be useful to clinicians who are planning studies where the change in the minimum JSW is the outcome of interest. The results of this analysis suggest that studies using JSW as primary outcome measure based on radiographs should plan to have a follow-up period that is greater than two years and have the knee in a flexed position when performing the radiographs to ensure the greatest possible responsiveness. While the pooled SRM was higher for studies that did not blind the reader to the sequence of the radiographs (0.55), it is unlikely that blinding of the readers of the radiographs substantially influenced our results since only two estimates came from studies that did not blind their readers. Also, the pooled SRM for estimates coming from studies that did blind the readers was similar to those that did not report this information (0.30 vs. 0.35 respectively).

Also, this is the first known literature synthesis that pools reliability data on measuring minimum JSW. In general, these measurements can be considered to be reliable as the intra- and inter-reader ICCs were large and the CVs were low.

A major limitation of our review is that we did not report our results by risk factors for knee OA progression (body mass index, knee alignment, age, concurrent OA in other joints, synovitis, etc.) since they were not uniformly reported. The fact that we were not able to account for these factors may have contributed to the heterogeneity in the SRMs. It is important for future studies that report results on quantitative changes of knee OA progression to report these risk factors. Also, we did not collect data on the number of readers and the time interval between reads for our reliability data. It would be interesting to examine how these factors affected our estimates of reliability.

We found that radiographs provide moderate responsiveness and good reliability measures for measuring the minimum JSW in persons with knee OA. These data will be useful to clinicians who wish to plan future RCTs in which change in minimum JSW is their primary outcome.

Table 2.

Study Characteristics of the manuscripts reviewed for reliability

Author, year (Ref.) Sample Size Radiographic Approach Method of Measurement Reliability Estimator Observer Value
Buckland-Wright et al., 199537 5 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computer CV Intra 3.8%
5 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computer CV Intra 1.2%
7 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual CV Intra 3.6%
7 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual CV Intra 0.6%
Ravaud et al., 19969 55 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual ICC Intra 0.95
55 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual ICC Inter 0.85
Pavelka et al., 20004 10 Extension with fluoroscopy Manual CV Intra 2.0%
10 Extension with fluoroscopy Manual ICC Intra 0.99
280 Extension with fluoroscopy Manual CV Inter 6.6%
280 Extension with fluoroscopy Manual ICC Inter 0.97
Mazzuca et al., 20016 20 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual CV Intra 4.4%
Myazaki et al. 200212 10 Flexion without fluoroscopy Manual ICC Intra 0.92
Pavelka et al. 200238 40 Extension with fluoroscopy Manual CV Intra 1.9%
202 Extension with fluoroscopy Manual CV Inter 2.6%
Boegard et al. 200313 51 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual CV Intra 2.3%
51 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual CV Intra 1.0%
51 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual CV Inter 2.7%
51 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual CV Inter 1.1%
Mazzuca et al. 200314 71 Flexion without fluoroscopy Manual CV Intra 5.8%
Sugiyama et al. 200316 10 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computer CV Intra 1.5%
Vignon et al. 200317 20 Extension with fluoroscopy Computer ICC Intra 0.98
36 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computer ICC Intra 0.98
Mazzuca et al. 200439 30 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual ICC Intra 0.996
30 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual ICC Inter 0.956
Pavelka et al. 200418 89 Extension with fluoroscopy Manual CV Intra 3.6%
89 Extension with fluoroscopy Manual CV Inter 6.5%
Pham et al. 200419 156 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual ICC Intra 0.993
Pham et al. 200420 292 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual ICC Intra 0.996
292 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual ICC Inter 0.912
Sharif et al. 200440 20 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual CV Intra 11.3%
Cicuttini et al. 200541 123 Extension without fluoroscopy Computer CV Intra 4.8%
Conrozier et al. 200523 106 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computer CV Intra 1.15%
106 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computer ICC Intra 0.99
Michel et al. 200524 284 Flexion without fluoroscopy Computer ICC Intra 0.98
Szebenyi et al. 200642 60 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual ICC Intra 0.895
60 Extension without fluoroscopy Manual ICC Inter 0.868
Nevitt et al. 200731 80 Flexion without fluoroscopy Manual ICC Intra 0.90
80 Flexion without fluoroscopy Manual ICC Inter 0.98
25 Flexion without fluoroscopy Computer ICC Intra 0.96
25 Flexion without fluoroscopy Computer CV Intra 2.9%
Le Graverand et al. 200833 36 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computer ICC Intra 0.99
36 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computer ICC Inter 0.99
18 Flexion without fluoroscopy Computer ICC Intra 0.99
Mazzuca et al. 200834 39 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computer CV Intra 0.80
Gensburger et al. 200935 42 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual ICC Intra 0.89
42 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual CV Intra 2.9%
44 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual ICC Inter 0.80
44 Flexion with fluoroscopy Manual CV Inter 0.8%
Kahan et al. 200936 100 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computer CV Intra 1.2%
100 Flexion with fluoroscopy Computer ICC Intra 0.99
Open in a new tab

Table 4.

Results of random-effects pooling for studies that reported estimates of intra-class correlation (ICC) by different study characteristics

Number of Estimates Inter-reader ICC (95% CI) Number of Estimates Intra-reader ICC (95% CI)
Overall 8 0.93 (0.86, 0.99) 17 0.97 (0.92, 1.00)
Knee Flexion
 Extended 4 0.93 (0.85, 1.00) 6 0.98 (0.90, 1.00)
 Flexed 4 0.94 (0.79, 1.00) 11 0.97 (0.90, 1.00)
Fluoroscopy
 Fluoro 4 0.95 (0.85, 1.00) 8 0.98 (0.88, 1.00)
 No Fluoro 4 0.91 (0.82, 1.00) 9 0.97 (0.91, 1.00)
Measurement Method
 Manual 7 0.93 (0.86, 0.99) 9 0.97 (0.89, 1.00)
 Computerized 1 0.99 (N/A) 8 0.98 (0.90, 1.00)
Open in a new tab

Table 5.

Results of random-effects pooling for studies that reported estimates of coefficient of variation (CV) by different study characteristics

Number of Estimates Inter-reader CV (95% CI) Number of Estimates Intra-reader CV (95% CI)
Overall 6 3.4% (1.3, 5.5) 19 3.0% (2.0, 4.0)
Knee Flexion
 Extended 3 5.2% (2.5, 8.0) 6 4.7% (2.7, 6.7)
 Flexed 3 1.5% (0.3, 2.7) 13 2.2% (1.3, 3.2)
Fluoroscopy
 Fluoro 6 3.4% (1.3, 5.5) 14 2.0% (1.4, 2.5)
 No Fluoro 0 N/A 5 5.8% (3.8, 7.9)
Measurement Method
 Manual 6 3.4% (1.3, 5.5) 11 3.6% (2.1, 5.1)
 Computerized 0 N/A 8 2.2% (0.8, 3.5)
Open in a new tab

Acknowledgments

We recognize the invaluable support of Valorie Thompson for administrative and editorial support, the OA community for their feedback and OARSI for their invaluable support of this activity. This analysis and literature review was undertaken to facilitate discussions and development of recommendations by the Assessment of Structural Change Working group for the OARSI FDA Initiative.

The OARSI FDA OA Initiative received financial support from the following professional organization:

American College of Rheumatology

Additionally the OARSI FDA OA Initiative received financial support from the following companies:

Amgen

ArthroLab

AstraZeneca

Bayer Healthcare

Chondrometrics

CombinatoRx

Cypress BioScience

DePuy Mitek

Expanscience

4QImaging

Genevrier/IBSA

Genzyme

King (Alpharma)

Merck

Merck Serono

NicOx

Pfizer

Rottapharm

Smith & Nephew

Wyeth

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest Statement

WR, JFM, JK, PC, EL: no conflict of interest to declare

DH: receives research or institutional support from DonJoy, NIH, and Stryker.

While individuals from pharmaceutical, biotechnology and device companies actively participated in on-going working group discussions, due to the conflict of interest policy enacted by OARSI, these individuals were not allowed to vote on the final recommendations made by OARSI to the Food and Drug Administration.

Author Contributions

  • Conception and design (WMR, JFM, EL)
  • Analysis and interpretation of the data (WMR, JFM, DJH, PGC, JNK, EL)
  • Drafting of the article (WMR, JFM, DJH, PGC, JNK, EL)
  • Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content (WMR, JFM, DJH, PGC, JNK, EL)
  • Final approval of the article (WMR, JFM, DJH, PGC, JNK, EL)
  • Statistical expertise (WMR, EL)
  • Collection and assembly of data (WMR, JFM)

The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  • 1.Dillon CF, Rasch EK, Gu Q, Hirsch R. Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in the United States: arthritis data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1991–94. J Rheumatol. 2006;33:2271–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhang W, Moskowitz RW, Nuki G, Abramson S, Altman RD, Arden N, et al. OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, part I: critical appraisal of existing treatment guidelines and systematic review of current research evidence. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15:981–1000. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.06.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lequesne M. Quantitative measurements of joint space during progression of osteoarthritis: chondrometry. In: Kuettner KE, Goldberg VM, editors. Osteoarthritic disorders. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1995. pp. 427–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pavelka K, Gatterova J, Gollerova V, Urbanova Z, Sedlackova M, Altman RD. A 5-year randomized controlled, double-blind study of glycosaminoglycan polysulphuric acid complex (Rumalon) as a structure modifying therapy in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2000;8:335–42. doi: 10.1053/joca.1999.0307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Emrani PS, Katz JN, Kessler CL, Reichmann WM, Wright EA, McAlindon TE, et al. Joint space narrowing and Kellgren-Lawrence progression in knee osteoarthritis: an analytic literature synthesis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16:873–82. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Dieppe PA, Doherty M, Katz BP, Lane KA. Effect of alignment of the medial tibial plateau and x-ray beam on apparent progression of osteoarthritis in the standing anteroposterior knee radiograph. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44:1786–94. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(200108)44:8<1786::AID-ART315>3.0.CO;2-L. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Reginster JY, Deroisy R, Rovati LC, Lee RL, Lejeune E, Bruyere O, et al. Long-term effects of glucosamine sulphate on osteoarthritis progression: a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Lancet. 2001;357:251–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03610-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ayral X, Dougados M, Listrat V, Bonvarlet JP, Simonnet J, Amor B. Arthroscopic evaluation of chondropathy in osteoarthritis of the knee. J Rheumatol. 1996;23:698–706. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ravaud P, Giraudeau B, Auleley GR, Chastang C, Poiraudeau S, Ayral X, et al. Radiographic assessment of knee osteoarthritis: reproducibility and sensitivity to change. J Rheumatol. 1996;23:1756–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Listrat V, Ayral X, Patarnello F, Bonvarlet JP, Simonnet J, Amor B, et al. Arthroscopic evaluation of potential structure modifying activity of hyaluronan (Hyalgan) in osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1997;5:153–60. doi: 10.1016/s1063-4584(97)80010-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gandy SJ, Dieppe PA, Keen MC, Maciewicz RA, Watt I, Waterton JC. No loss of cartilage volume over three years in patients with knee osteoarthritis as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10:929–37. doi: 10.1053/joca.2002.0849. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Miyazaki T, Wada M, Kawahara H, Sato M, Baba H, Shimada S. Dynamic load at baseline can predict radiographic disease progression in medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002;61:617–22. doi: 10.1136/ard.61.7.617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Boegard TL, Rudling O, Petersson IF, Jonsson K. Joint space width of the tibiofemoral and of the patellofemoral joint in chronic knee pain with or without radiographic osteoarthritis: a 2-year follow-up. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2003;11:370–6. doi: 10.1016/s1063-4584(03)00030-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Buckwalter KA. Detection of radiographic joint space narrowing in subjects with knee osteoarthritis: longitudinal comparison of the metatarsophalangeal and semiflexed anteroposterior views. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48:385–90. doi: 10.1002/art.10765. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pessis E, Drape JL, Ravaud P, Chevrot A, Dougados M, Ayral X. Assessment of progression in knee osteoarthritis: results of a 1 year study comparing arthroscopy and MRI. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2003;11:361–9. doi: 10.1016/s1063-4584(03)00049-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sugiyama S, Itokazu M, Suzuki Y, Shimizu K. Procollagen II C propeptide level in the synovial fluid as a predictor of radiographic progression in early knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62:27–32. doi: 10.1136/ard.62.1.27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vignon E, Piperno M, Le Graverand MP, Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Mathieu P, et al. Measurement of radiographic joint space width in the tibiofemoral compartment of the osteoarthritic knee: comparison of standing anteroposterior and Lyon schuss views. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48:378–84. doi: 10.1002/art.10773. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pavelka K, Forejtova S, Olejarova M, Gatterova J, Senolt L, Spacek P, et al. Hyaluronic acid levels may have predictive value for the progression of knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12:277–83. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2004.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pham T, Maillefert JF, Hudry C, Kieffert P, Bourgeois P, Lechevalier D, et al. Laterally elevated wedged insoles in the treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis. A two-year prospective randomized controlled study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12:46–55. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2003.08.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pham T, Le Henanff A, Ravaud P, Dieppe P, Paolozzi L, Dougados M. Evaluation of the symptomatic and structural efficacy of a new hyaluronic acid compound, NRD101, in comparison with diacerein and placebo in a 1 year randomised controlled study in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:1611–7. doi: 10.1136/ard.2003.019703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Uebelhart D, Malaise M, Marcolongo R, de Vathaire F, Piperno M, Mailleux E, et al. Intermittent treatment of knee osteoarthritis with oral chondroitin sulfate: a one-year, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study versus placebo. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12:269–76. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2004.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Brandt KD, Mazzuca SA, Katz BP, Lane KA, Buckwalter KA, Yocum DE, et al. Effects of doxycycline on progression of osteoarthritis: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52:2015–25. doi: 10.1002/art.21122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Conrozier T, Mathieu P, Piperno M, Favret H, Colson F, Vignon M, et al. Selection of knee radiographs for trials of structure-modifying drugs in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, longitudinal study of Lyon Schuss knee radiographs with the definition of adequate alignment of the medial tibial plateau. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52:1411–7. doi: 10.1002/art.21024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Michel BA, Stucki G, Frey D, De Vathaire F, Vignon E, Bruehlmann P, et al. Chondroitins 4 and 6 sulfate in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52:779–86. doi: 10.1002/art.20867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Spector TD, Conaghan PG, Buckland-Wright JC, Garnero P, Cline GA, Beary JF, et al. Effect of risedronate on joint structure and symptoms of knee osteoarthritis: results of the BRISK randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN01928173] Arthritis Res Ther. 2005;7:R625–33. doi: 10.1186/ar1716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bingham CO, 3rd, Buckland-Wright JC, Garnero P, Cohen SB, Dougados M, Adami S, et al. Risedronate decreases biochemical markers of cartilage degradation but does not decrease symptoms or slow radiographic progression in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee: results of the two-year multinational knee osteoarthritis structural arthritis study. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:3494–507. doi: 10.1002/art.22160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cline GA, Meyer JM, Stevens R, Buckland-Wright C, Peterfy C, Beary JF. Comparison of fixed flexion, fluoroscopic semi-flexed and MTP radiographic methods for obtaining the minimum medial joint space width of the knee in longitudinal osteoarthritis trials. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2006;14 (Suppl A):A32–6. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2006.02.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mikesky AE, Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Perkins SM, Damush T, Lane KA. Effects of strength training on the incidence and progression of knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55:690–9. doi: 10.1002/art.22245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Botha-Scheepers S, Kloppenburg M, Kroon HM, Hellio Le Graverand MP, Breedveld FC, Ravaud P, et al. Fixed-flexion knee radiography: the sensitivity to detect knee joint space narrowing in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15:350–3. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2006.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Krzeski P, Buckland-Wright C, Balint G, Cline GA, Stoner K, Lyon R, et al. Development of musculoskeletal toxicity without clear benefit after administration of PG-116800, a matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor, to patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, 12-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2007;9:R109. doi: 10.1186/ar2315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Nevitt MC, Peterfy C, Guermazi A, Felson DT, Duryea J, Woodworth T, et al. Longitudinal performance evaluation and validation of fixed-flexion radiography of the knee for detection of joint space loss. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56:1512–20. doi: 10.1002/art.22557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sharif M, Kirwan J, Charni N, Sandell LJ, Whittles C, Garnero P. A 5-yr longitudinal study of type IIA collagen synthesis and total type II collagen degradation in patients with knee osteoarthritis--association with disease progression. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46:938–43. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kel409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Le Graverand MP, Vignon EP, Brandt KD, Mazzuca SA, Piperno M, Buck R, et al. Head-to-head comparison of the Lyon Schuss and fixed flexion radiographic techniques. Long-term reproducibility in normal knees and sensitivity to change in osteoarthritic knees. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67:1562–6. doi: 10.1136/ard.2007.077834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mazzuca SA, Hellio Le Graverand MP, Vignon E, Hunter DJ, Jackson CG, Kraus VB, et al. Performance of a non-fluoroscopically assisted substitute for the Lyon schuss knee radiograph: quality and reproducibility of positioning and sensitivity to joint space narrowing in osteoarthritic knees. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16:1555–9. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2008.04.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gensburger D, Arlot M, Sornay-Rendu E, Roux JP, Delmas P. Radiologic assessment of age-related knee joint space changes in women: a 4-year longitudinal study. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61:336–43. doi: 10.1002/art.24342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kahan A, Uebelhart D, De Vathaire F, Delmas PD, Reginster JY. Long-term effects of chondroitins 4 and 6 sulfate on knee osteoarthritis: the study on osteoarthritis progression prevention, a two-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60:524–33. doi: 10.1002/art.24255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Buckland-Wright JC, MacFarlane DG, Lynch JA, Jasani MK. Quantitative microfocal radiography detects changes in OA knee joint space width in patients in placebo controlled trial of NSAID therapy. J Rheumatol. 1995;22:937–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pavelka K, Gatterova J, Olejarova M, Machacek S, Giacovelli G, Rovati LC. Glucosamine sulfate use and delay of progression of knee osteoarthritis: a 3-year, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:2113–23. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.18.2113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Buckwalter KA, Lequesne M. Pitfalls in the accurate measurement of joint space narrowing in semiflexed, anteroposterior radiographic imaging of the knee. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:2508–15. doi: 10.1002/art.20363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Sharif M, Kirwan JR, Elson CJ, Granell R, Clarke S. Suggestion of nonlinear or phasic progression of knee osteoarthritis based on measurements of serum cartilage oligomeric matrix protein levels over five years. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:2479–88. doi: 10.1002/art.20365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Cicuttini F, Hankin J, Jones G, Wluka A. Comparison of conventional standing knee radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging in assessing progression of tibiofemoral joint osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005;13:722–7. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2005.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Szebenyi B, Hollander AP, Dieppe P, Quilty B, Duddy J, Clarke S, et al. Associations between pain, function, and radiographic features in osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:230–5. doi: 10.1002/art.21534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES