While the extrinsic factors affecting reproducibility of shear wave elastography (SWE) have been well documented, there are few resources assessing intrinsic characteristics of the lesion affecting the reproducibility and accuracy of SWE. In this regard, this study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of measured elasticity and the reproducibility of SWE according to the lesion size and stiffness. Two breast radiologists examined 20 targets of 4 different levels of stiffness and 5 different sizes (2.5, 4, 7, 11, and 18 mm) in a customized elasticity phantom. The B-mode image, color elastography image, and kPa measurement were obtained twice by each examiner with a 1-week interval. Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility and the accuracy of measured kPa were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. Subgroup analysis was run to evaluate the effect of lesion size and stiffness on the reproducibility and accuracy of measured kPa. Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility for measuring kPa showed excellent agreement (ICC: 0.9742 and 0.9582; ICC: 0.9932 and 0.9294). The size and stiffness of the targets did not affect reproducibility. The overall accuracy of measured kPa was very high (ICC: 0.8049). In the subgroup analysis, targets that were ≤4 mm in size showed lower accuracy (ICC: 0.542), whereas targets that were 7 and 11 mm in size showed higher accuracy (ICC: 0.9832 and 0.9656, respectively). SWE shows excellent reproducibility regardless of lesion size or stiffness in phantom targets. The accuracy of measured kPa is high in lesions that are 7 and 11 mm in size but is low in lesions that are ≤4 mm in size.
We aimed to understand the evaluation of different Bowie-Dick test (B-D test) on the performance of pressure steam sterilization equipment in the case of simulated gas leakage, and we selected a pulsating vacuum steam sterilizer to set 4 different gas leakage levels: 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, and 1.7 mbar/min during the B-D test phase. In terms of methods, 4 different brands of B-D test kits (devices) were tested at 4 different leakage rates, and a total of 48 experiments were conducted. The results from univariate analysis revealed that there are statistically significant differences in the judgment of test results among different personnel and brands. The results from multivariate logistic regression analysis displayed that the difference between different personnel was statistically significant (χ = 45.34, P < .001); the difference between different products was statistically significant (χ = 129.37, P < .001); and there was no statistically significant difference between different degree of leakage (χ = 6.99, P > .05). Result judgments of brand 1 and brand 2 are susceptible to subjective factors. The judgment of brand 3 is intuitive and consistent with the evaluation result of brand 4. In conclusion, the order of capacity to evaluate air leakage from best to worst is brand 4→brand 3→brand 1→brand 2.
Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) as a disease that poses a great threat to human health, which has become a public health issue of great concern. Studies have found that exercise training has a positive effect on improving the condition of chronic kidney disease. We will conduct a network meta-analysis to assess the effects of aerobic training, resistance training and combined aerobic and resistance training in treating CKD patients.
Methods: We will search PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of science to identify randomized control trails (RCTs) that assessed the effect of different exercise training for CKD patients. Cochrane Handbook will be used to evaluate the risk of bias of included articles. We will use Stata or R software to perform data analysis.
Results and conclusion: Our systematic review and network meta-analysis will be the first study that investigates the effect of different exercise training for CKD patients, and will provide evidence for management of chronic kidney disease.
Ethics and dissemination: The data involved in this study are from published articles. For this reason, there is no need for ethical approval or patient consent.
Trial registration: the registration number was: CRD42020157280.

