The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Low Back Pain in Adults: A Diagnostic Imaging Study of 40-Year-Old Men and Women
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study of a general population. OBJECTIVE: To investigate "abnormal" lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, and their prevalence and associations with low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The clinical relevance of various "abnormal" findings in the lumbar spine is unclear. Distinguishing between inevitable age-related findings and degenerative findings with deleterious consequences is a challenge. METHODS: Lumbar spine MRI was obtained in 412, 40-year-old individuals. Predefined "abnormal" MRI findings were interpreted without any knowledge of patient symptoms. Associations between MRI abnormalities and LBP were calculated using odds ratios. The "overall picture" of each MRI finding was established on the basis of the frequencies, diagnostic values, and the strength and consistency of associations. RESULTS: Most "abnormal" MRI findings were found at the lowest lumbar levels. Irregular nucleus shape and reduced disc height were common (>50% of individuals). Relatively common (25% to 50%) were hypointense disc signal, anular tears, high intensity zones, disc protrusions, endplate changes, zygapophyseal joint degeneration, asymmetry, and foraminal stenosis. Nerve root compromise, Modic changes, central spinal stenosis, and anterolisthesis/retrolisthesis were rare (<25%). Most strongly associated with LBP were Modic changes and anterolisthesis (odds ratios >4). Significantly positive associations with all LBP variables were seen for hypointense disc signals, reduced disc height, and Modic changes. All disc "abnormalities" except protrusion were moderately associated with LBP during the past year. CONCLUSION: Most degenerative disc "abnormalities" were moderately associated with LBP. The strongest associations were noted for Modic changes and anterolisthesis. Further studies are needed to define clinical relevance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Deyo, R. A., & Weinstein, J. N. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200102013440508 · Cited by 1,675
Lack of Evidence-Based Research for Idiopathic Low Back Pain: The Importance of a Specific Diagnosis
Abraham, I., & Killackey-Jones, B. (2002) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.162.13.1442 · Cited by 59
Cited by
Jensen, T. S., Karppinen, J., Sorensen, J. S., Niinimäki, J., & Leboeuf-Yde, C. (2008) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0770-2 · Cited by 470
Self-citationBeneck, G. J., & Kulig, K. (2012) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2011.09.017 · Cited by 159
Metadata
- Authors
- Kjaer, P., Leboeuf-Yde, C., Korsholm, L., Sorensen, J. S., & Bendix, T.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 2005-05
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1173-1180
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2033568227
- Cited by
- 442
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Low Back Pain in Adults: A Diagnostic Imaging Study of 40-Year-Old Men and Women. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.brs.0000162396.97739.76
- The paper
- Kjaer, P., Leboeuf-Yde, C., Korsholm, L., Sorensen, J. S., & Bendix, T. (2005). Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Low Back Pain in Adults: A Diagnostic Imaging Study of 40-Year-Old Men and Women. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000162396.97739.76
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.