Measuring intraobserver and intermethod reliability of endometriotic cyst volumes: A comparison between MRI and 3D transvaginal ultrasound in endometriosis

IF 0.6 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of endometriosis and pelvic pain disorders Pub Date : 2022-03-31 DOI:10.1177/22840265221084928
J. Bergwerff, A. Schreurs, M. C. Lier, J. V. van Waesberghe, L. V. D. van der Houwen, V. Mijatovic
{"title":"Measuring intraobserver and intermethod reliability of endometriotic cyst volumes: A comparison between MRI and 3D transvaginal ultrasound in endometriosis","authors":"J. Bergwerff, A. Schreurs, M. C. Lier, J. V. van Waesberghe, L. V. D. van der Houwen, V. Mijatovic","doi":"10.1177/22840265221084928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To identify the intraobserver and intermethod reliability of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound (3D-TVUS) using the software VOCAL and XI VOCAL compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for volumetric measurement of ovarian endometrioma. Methods: The intermethod and intraobserver reliability of endometrioma volumes were assessed in 16 women diagnosed with endometriosis through laparoscopy with histologic confirmation and presenting with uni- or bilateral endometriomas. In total, volumes of 23 endometriomas were assessed with two-dimensional and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound and 6 mm magnetic resonance imaging. Examinations took place at two moments in one menstrual cycle: day 2–4 (T0) and day 20–22 (T1). Results: The intraclass correlation for intraobserver reliability is good to very good for all three techniques ranging from the lowest value of 0.953 to the highest of 1.000. MRI has the most narrow limits of agreement (−3.93 to 4.53), followed by XI VOCAL (−5.16 to 5.65) while VOCAL has the widest limits of agreement (−10.22 to 11.39). Intraclass correlations are poor in the comparison of XI VOCAL to MRI, moderate between VOCAL and XI VOCAL, and good for the comparison between VOCAL and MRI. Limits of agreement vary per technique. When comparing 3D imaging techniques with 2D TVUS, XI VOCAL versus 2D TVUS provide the smallest limits of agreement. Conclusions: MRI and XI VOCAL provide the best intraobserver reliability. The different imaging techniques are not interchangeable. As TVUS is a more readily available and cost-efficient imaging technique the usage of XI VOCAL is advised.","PeriodicalId":15725,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endometriosis and pelvic pain disorders","volume":"14 1","pages":"80 - 86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endometriosis and pelvic pain disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22840265221084928","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To identify the intraobserver and intermethod reliability of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound (3D-TVUS) using the software VOCAL and XI VOCAL compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for volumetric measurement of ovarian endometrioma. Methods: The intermethod and intraobserver reliability of endometrioma volumes were assessed in 16 women diagnosed with endometriosis through laparoscopy with histologic confirmation and presenting with uni- or bilateral endometriomas. In total, volumes of 23 endometriomas were assessed with two-dimensional and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound and 6 mm magnetic resonance imaging. Examinations took place at two moments in one menstrual cycle: day 2–4 (T0) and day 20–22 (T1). Results: The intraclass correlation for intraobserver reliability is good to very good for all three techniques ranging from the lowest value of 0.953 to the highest of 1.000. MRI has the most narrow limits of agreement (−3.93 to 4.53), followed by XI VOCAL (−5.16 to 5.65) while VOCAL has the widest limits of agreement (−10.22 to 11.39). Intraclass correlations are poor in the comparison of XI VOCAL to MRI, moderate between VOCAL and XI VOCAL, and good for the comparison between VOCAL and MRI. Limits of agreement vary per technique. When comparing 3D imaging techniques with 2D TVUS, XI VOCAL versus 2D TVUS provide the smallest limits of agreement. Conclusions: MRI and XI VOCAL provide the best intraobserver reliability. The different imaging techniques are not interchangeable. As TVUS is a more readily available and cost-efficient imaging technique the usage of XI VOCAL is advised.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测量子宫内膜异位症囊肿体积的观察内和方法间可靠性:子宫内膜异位症MRI与三维经阴道超声的比较
目的:通过与磁共振成像(MRI)进行卵巢子宫内膜瘤体积测量的比较,确定VOCAL和XI VOCAL软件三维经阴道超声(3D-TVUS)的观察者内和方法间可靠性。方法:对16例经腹腔镜诊断为子宫内膜异位症并经组织学证实为单侧或双侧子宫内膜瘤的妇女进行子宫内膜瘤体积的方法间和观察者内可靠性评估。经阴道二维和三维超声共评估了23例子宫内膜瘤的体积,6例 mm磁共振成像。检查在一个月经周期的两个时刻进行:第2-4天(T0)和第20-22天(T1)。结果:观察者内部可靠性的组内相关性从0.953的最低值到1.000的最高值,所有三种技术都是好到非常好的。MRI的一致性界限最窄(−3.93至4.53),其次是XI VOCAL(−5.16至5.65),而VOCAL的一致性限度最宽(−10.22至11.39)。在XI VOCAL与MRI的比较中,类内相关性较差,VOCAL与XI VOCAL之间的相关性中等,有利于VOCAL与MR的比较。协议的限制因技术而异。当将3D成像技术与2D TVUS进行比较时,XI VOCAL与2D TVUS提供了最小的一致性限制。结论:MRI和XI VOCAL提供了最佳的观察者内可靠性。不同的成像技术是不可互换的。由于TVUS是一种更容易获得且更具成本效益的成像技术,建议使用XI VOCAL。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
Endometriosis on TikTok: Evaluating social media misinformation and the role of healthcare professionals When cystoscopy catches what laparoscopy misses: The role of cystoscopy in evaluation of bladder endometriosis Comprehensive management of umbilical endometriosis using a unique laparoscopic entry portal (Darwish point) and postoperative Dienogest Chronic pelvic pain: An underrecognised perioperative consideration The Holy Grail of endometriosis biomarkers in the diagnostic process – How much would it be worth and what does it look like?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1