Factors contributing to the variability of a predictive score for cranial cruciate ligament deficiency in Labrador Retrievers

• Published in: BMC veterinary research 2017-08, Vol.13 (1), p.235-235, Article 235
• Main Authors: Cunningham, Devin P, Mostafa, Ayman A, Gordan-Evans, Wanda J, Boudrieau, Randy J, Griffon, Dominique J
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animals; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries - diagnostic imaging; Conformation; Correlation coefficient; Correlation coefficients; Cross-Sectional Studies; Cruciate ligaments; Dog Diseases - diagnostic imaging; Dogs; Female; Femur; Femur - anatomy & histology; Femur - diagnostic imaging; Knee; Labrador retrievers; Ligaments; Limbs; Male; Medical examination; Observer Variation; Physiological aspects; Radiography; Reproducibility of Results; Skin & tissue grafts; Skull; Tibia - anatomy & histology; Tibia - diagnostic imaging; Trauma; Ultrasonic imaging; Variability; Veterinary surgeons
• ISSN: 1746-6148; 1746-6148
• DOI: 10.1186/s12917-017-1154-9

We recently reported that a conformation score derived from the tibial plateau angle (TPA) and the femoral anteversion angle (FAA), best discriminates limbs predisposed to, or affected by cranial cruciate ligament disease (CCLD), from those that are at low risk for CCLD. The specificity and sensitivity of this score were high enough to support further investigations toward its use for large-scale screening of dogs by veterinarians. The next step, which is the objective of the current study, is to determine inter-observer variability of that CCLD score in a large population of Labrador Retrievers. A total of 167 Labradors were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Limbs of normal dogs over 6 years of age with no history of CCLD were considered at low risk for CCLD. Limbs of dogs with CCLD were considered at high risk for CCLD. Tibial plateau and femoral anteversion angles were measured independently by two investigators to calculate a CCLD score for each limb. Kappa statistics were used to determine the extent of agreement between investigators. Pearson's correlation and intraclass coefficients were calculated to evaluate the correlation between investigators and the relative contribution of each measurement to the variability of the CCLD score. The correlation between CCLD scores calculated by investigators was good (correlation coefficient = 0.68 p