Comparison of BLOKS and WORMS scoring systems part I. Cross sectional comparison of methods to assess cartilage morphology, meniscal damage and bone marrow lesions on knee MRI: data from the osteoarthritis initiative.
OBJECTIVE
To compare two semiquantitative scoring systems for assessing the prevalence and severity of morphologic cartilage lesions, meniscal damage and bone marrow lesions (BMLs) from Magnetic Resonance Imagings (MRIs) of knees with osteoarthritis (OA).


METHODS
From participants in the OA Initiative (OAI), a sample of 115 knees with radiographic OA at high risk of cartilage loss, were selected based on risk factors for progression. Knee MRIs were read separately using both Whole Organ MR Scoring (WORMS) and Boston-Leeds OA Knee Scoring (BLOKS), and a subset was fed back to readers for reliability. Baseline readings were used for comparison of the two methods for inter-reader reliability as well as agreement on presence/absence and severity of MRI features at both the compartment level and finer anatomical subregion levels.


RESULTS
Both methods had high inter-reader agreement for all features studied (kappa for WORMS 0.69-1.0 and for BLOKS 0.65-1.0). Although the methods agreed well on presence and severity of morphological cartilage lesions (inter-method kappas from 0.66 to 0.95), BLOKS was more sensitive for full thickness defects. The two methods gave equivalent results for extent (kappa 0.74-0.80) and number (Spearman's Rho=0.85) of BMLs, and little extra information was obtained using the more complex BLOKS BML scoring. Similar results were also obtained for the common types of meniscal damage and extrusion (inter-method kappa 0.85-0.94), but the inclusion in BLOKS of meniscal signal abnormality and uncommon types of tear may be an advantage if these prove clinically meaningful.


CONCLUSIONS
Both WORMS and BLOKS had high reliability. The two methods gave similar results in this sample for prevalence and severity of cartilage loss, BMLs and meniscal damage. Selecting between, or combining, the two methods should be based on factors such as reader effort, appropriateness for the goals of a study, and longitudinal performance.
Lynch
J A
JA
Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA.
Roemer
F W
FW
Nevitt
M C
MC
Felson
D T
DT
Niu
J
J
Eaton
C B
CB
Guermazi
A
A
D000368:Aged; D001853:Bone Marrow / Q000293:injuries / Q000473:pathology*; D002358:Cartilage, Articular / Q000473:pathology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007719:Knee Joint / Q000473:pathology; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods; D008297:Male; D008592:Menisci, Tibial / Q000473:pathology*; D008875:Middle Aged; D020370:Osteoarthritis, Knee / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000473:pathology*; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012720:Severity of Illness Index
Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Sep;52(9):2814-21
16145676
Arthritis Rheum. 2009 Mar;60(3):831-9
19248082
Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Sep;56(9):2986-92
17763427
Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2009 Mar;5(3):149-58
19252520
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009 Jun;17(6):748-53
19008123
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010 Jan;18(1):47-53
19769930
Radiology. 2009 Sep;252(3):772-80
19635831
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009 Nov;17(11):1448-52
19505430
Arthritis Rheum. 2004 Nov;50(11):3516-25
15529367
J Rheumatol. 2005 Nov;32(11):2192-9
16265702
Ann Rheum Dis. 2009 Sep;68(9):1461-5
18829615
Ann Rheum Dis. 2008 Feb;67(2):206-11
17472995
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004 Mar;12(3):177-90
14972335
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008 Dec;16(12):1433-41
18786841
Arthritis Rheum. 2009 Nov 15;61(11):1539-44
19877101
Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2004 Nov;30(4):783-97, vii
15488693
Ann Rheum Dis. 2008 Jan;67(1):43-7
19623678
Skeletal Radiol. 2005 Feb;34(2):95-102
15480649
Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Oct;52(10):3152-9
16200595