Table 4.
Correlation coefficients (R) between grade and clinical manifestation
| Grade | C4–5 (52 cases) | C5–6 (76 cases) | C6–7 (60 cases) | Total (188 cases) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Park system | Radiologist 1 | 0.582 (<0.001) | 0.772 (<0.001) | 0.802 (<0.001) | 0.741 (<0.001) |
| Radiologist 2 | 0.582 (<0.001) | 0.746 (<0.001) | 0.777 (<0.001) | 0.737 (<0.001) | |
| Kim system | Radiologist 1 | 0.766 (<0.001) | 0.758 (<0.001) | 0.784 (<0.001) | 0.768 (<0.001) |
| Radiologist 2 | 0.456 (<0.001) | 0.668 (<0.001) | 0.716 (<0.001) | 0.658 (<0.001) | |
| Modified Kim system | Radiologist 1 | 0.541 (<0.001) | 0.755 (<0.001) | 0.839 (<0.001) | 0.764 (<0.001) |
| Radiologist 2 | 0.532 (<0.001) | 0.664 (<0.001) | 0.801 (<0.001) | 0.714 (<0.001) | |
The level of correlation significance was 0.01.
Data: values in parentheses are p-values.
Correlation coefficient strength was characterized as follows: weak (0.1 ≤ R < 0.3), moderate (0.3 ≤ R < 0.7), relatively high (0.7 ≤ R < 0.9) and very high (0.9 ≤ R).