• 1
    Trotter EJ, de Lahunta A, Geary JC, Brasmer TH. Caudal cervical vertebral malformation-malarticulation in Great Danes and Doberman Pinschers. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1976;68:917930.
  • 2
    Chambers JN, Betts CW. Caudal cervical spondylopathy in the dog: a review of 20 clinical cases and the literature. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1997;13:571576.
  • 3
    da Costa RC. Cervical spondylomyelopathy. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2010;40:881913.
  • 4
    Gutierrez-Quintana R, Penderis J. MRI features of cervical articular process degenerative joint disease in Great Dane dogs with cervical spondylomyelopathy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2012;53:304311.
  • 5
    Lipsitz D, Levitski RE, Chauvet AE, Berry WL. Magnetic resonance imaging features of cervical stenotic myelopathy in 21 dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2001;42:2027.
  • 6
    da Costa RC, Parent JP, Dobson H, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and myelography in 18 Doberman pinscher dogs with cervical spondylomyelopathy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2006;47:523531.
  • 7
    De Decker S, Gielen IMVL, Duchateau L, et al. Intraobserver, interobserver, and intermethod agreement for results of myelography, computed tomography-myelography, and low-field magnetic resonance imaging in dogs with disk-associated wobbler syndrome. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011;238:16011608.
  • 8
    Seim HB, Withrow SJ. Pathophysiology and diagnosis of caudal cervical spondylo-myelopathy with emphasis on the Doberman Pinscher. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1982;18:241251.
  • 9
    Sharp NJH, Wheeler SJ, Cofone M. Radiological evaluation of ‘wobbler’ syndrome – caudal cervical spondylomyelopathy. J Small Anim Pract 1992;33:491499.
  • 10
    Tracy JA, Bartleson JD. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurologist 2010;16:176187.
  • 11
    Shafaie FF, Wippold II FJ, Gado M, et al. Comparison of computed tomography myelography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. Spine 1999;24:17811785.
  • 12
    Song KJ, Choi BW, Kim GH, Kim JR. Clinical usefulness of CT-myelogram comparing with the MRI in degenerative cervical spinal disorders. Is CTM still useful as primary diagnostic tool? J Spinal Disord Tech 2009;22:353357.
  • 13
    Reul J, Gievers B, Weis J, Thron A. Assessment of the narrow cervical spinal canal: a prospective comparison of MRI, myelography and CT-myelography. Neuroradiology 1995;37:187191.
  • 14
    Bartlett RJV, Rowland Hill CA, Devlin R, Gardiner ED. Two-dimensional MRI at 1.5 and 0.5 T versus CT myelography in the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. Neuroradiology 1996;38:142147.
  • 15
    Lehman RA, Helgeson MD, Keeler KA, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in predicting facet arthrosis in the cervical spine. Spine 2008;34:6568.
  • 16
    Modic MT, Weinstein MA, Pavlicek W, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine: technical and clinical observations. Am J Radiol 1983;141:11291136.
  • 17
    Yu YL, du Boulay GH, Stevens JM, Kendall BE. Computed tomography in cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy: visualization of structures, myelographic comparison, cord measurements and clinical utility. Neuroradiology 1986;28:221236.
  • 18
    Larsson EM, Holtas S, Cronqvist S, Brandt L. Comparison of myelography, CT myelography, and magnetic resonance imaging in cervical spondylosis and disk herniation. Acta Radiol 1989;30:239.
  • 19
    Naganawa T, Miyamoto K, Ogura H, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomogram-myelography for evaluation of cross sections of cervical spinal morphology. Spine 2011;36:5057.
  • 20
    Modic MT, Ross JS, Massaryk TJ. Imaging of degenerative disease of the cervical spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;239:109120.
  • 21
    Fields EL, Robertson ID, Brown JC Jr. Optimization of contrast-enhanced multidetector abdominal computed tomography in sedated canine patients. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2012;53:507512.
  • 22
    Cooper JJ, Young BD, Griffin IV JF, et al. Comparison between noncontrast computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for detection and characterization of thoracolumbar myelopathy caused by intervertebral disk herniation in dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2013. doi: 10.1111/vru.12114. [Epub ahead of print]
  • 23
    Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Boos N, Hodler J. MR imaging and CT in osteoarthritis of the lumbar facet joints. Skeletal Radiol 1999;28:215219.
  • 24
    Walraevens J, Liu B, Sloten JV, Goffin J. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of degeneration of cervical intervertebral discs and facet joints. Eur Spine J 2009;18:358369.
  • 25
    da Costa RC, Echandi RL, Beauchamp D. Computed tomography myelographic findings in dogs with cervical spondylomyelopathy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2012;53:6470.
  • 26
    da Costa RC, Parent JM, Partlow G, et al. Morphologic and morphometric magnetic resonance imaging features of Doberman Pinschers with and without clinical signs of cervical spondylomyelopathy. Am J Vet Res 2006;67:16011612.
  • 27
    Fleiss JL, Nee JC, Landis, JR. Large sample variance of kappa in the case of different sets of raters. Psychol Bull 1979;86:974977.
  • 28
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159174.
  • 29
    Stafira JS, Sonnad JR, Yuh WTC, et al. Qualitative assessment of cervical spinal stenosis: observer variability on CT and MR images. Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:766769.
  • 30
    Dorenbeck U, Schreyer AG, Schlaier J, et al. Degenerative diseases of the cervical spine: comparison of a multiecho data image combination sequence with a magnetization transfer saturation pulse and cervical myelography and CT. Neuroradiology 2004;46:306309.
  • 31
    Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005;37:360363.