比较三位不同放射科医生在腹部超声波检查中测量胆囊息肉的大小

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Tomography Pub Date : 2024-07-03 DOI:10.3390/tomography10070077
Kyu-Chong Lee, Jin-Kyem Kim, Dong-kyu Kim
{"title":"比较三位不同放射科医生在腹部超声波检查中测量胆囊息肉的大小","authors":"Kyu-Chong Lee, Jin-Kyem Kim, Dong-kyu Kim","doi":"10.3390/tomography10070077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: There is little information regarding the size measurement differences in gallbladder (GB) polyps performed by different radiologists on abdominal ultrasonography (US). Aim: To reveal the differences in GB polyp size measurements performed by different radiologists on abdominal US. Methods: From June to September 2022, the maximum diameter of 228 GB polyps was measured twice on abdominal US by one of three radiologists (a third-year radiology resident [reader A], a radiologist with 7 years of experience in abdominal US [reader B], and an abdominal radiologist with 8 years of experience in abdominal US [reader C]). Intra-reader agreements for polyp size measurements were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A Bland–Altman plot was used to visualize the differences between the first and second size measurements in each reader. Results: Reader A, reader B, and reader C evaluated 65, 77, and 86 polyps, respectively. The mean size of measured 228 GB polyps was 5.0 ± 1.9 mm. Except for the case where reader A showed moderate intra-reader agreement (0.726) for polyps with size ≤ 5 mm, all readers showed an overall high intra-reader reliability (reader A, ICC = 0.859; reader B, ICC = 0.947, reader C, ICC = 0.948), indicative of good and excellent intra-reader agreements. The 95% limit of agreement of reader A, B, and C was 1.9 mm of the mean in all three readers. Conclusions: GB polyp size measurement on abdominal US showed good or excellent intra-reader agreements. However, size changes of approximately less than 1.9 mm should be interpreted carefully because these may be within the measurement error.","PeriodicalId":51330,"journal":{"name":"Tomography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Size Measurement of Gallbladder Polyps by Three Different Radiologists in Abdominal Ultrasonography\",\"authors\":\"Kyu-Chong Lee, Jin-Kyem Kim, Dong-kyu Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/tomography10070077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: There is little information regarding the size measurement differences in gallbladder (GB) polyps performed by different radiologists on abdominal ultrasonography (US). Aim: To reveal the differences in GB polyp size measurements performed by different radiologists on abdominal US. Methods: From June to September 2022, the maximum diameter of 228 GB polyps was measured twice on abdominal US by one of three radiologists (a third-year radiology resident [reader A], a radiologist with 7 years of experience in abdominal US [reader B], and an abdominal radiologist with 8 years of experience in abdominal US [reader C]). Intra-reader agreements for polyp size measurements were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A Bland–Altman plot was used to visualize the differences between the first and second size measurements in each reader. Results: Reader A, reader B, and reader C evaluated 65, 77, and 86 polyps, respectively. The mean size of measured 228 GB polyps was 5.0 ± 1.9 mm. Except for the case where reader A showed moderate intra-reader agreement (0.726) for polyps with size ≤ 5 mm, all readers showed an overall high intra-reader reliability (reader A, ICC = 0.859; reader B, ICC = 0.947, reader C, ICC = 0.948), indicative of good and excellent intra-reader agreements. The 95% limit of agreement of reader A, B, and C was 1.9 mm of the mean in all three readers. Conclusions: GB polyp size measurement on abdominal US showed good or excellent intra-reader agreements. However, size changes of approximately less than 1.9 mm should be interpreted carefully because these may be within the measurement error.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tomography\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tomography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography10070077\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tomography","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography10070077","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有关不同放射科医生通过腹部超声波成像(US)测量胆囊(GB)息肉大小差异的信息很少。目的:揭示不同放射医师通过腹部超声波检查测量胆囊息肉大小的差异。方法:从 2022 年 6 月至 9 月,对不同放射科医生进行腹部超声波检查:从 2022 年 6 月到 9 月,由三位放射科医师(一位放射科三年级住院医师 [阅读器 A]、一位有 7 年腹部 US 经验的放射科医师 [阅读器 B],以及一位有 8 年腹部 US 经验的腹部放射科医师 [阅读器 C])中的一位通过腹部 US 对 228 个胃肠道息肉的最大直径进行了两次测量。通过类内相关系数(ICC)评估阅片者内部对息肉大小测量的一致性。布兰德-阿尔特曼图用于显示每位读者第一次和第二次测量结果之间的差异。结果:读者 A、读者 B 和读者 C 分别评估了 65、77 和 86 个息肉。测量的 228 GB 息肉的平均大小为 5.0 ± 1.9 毫米。除了读者 A 对大小≤5 毫米的息肉显示出中等程度的读数内一致性(0.726)外,所有读者都显示出较高的读数内可靠性(读者 A,ICC = 0.859;读者 B,ICC = 0.947,读者 C,ICC = 0.948),表明读数内一致性良好或极佳。三位读者 A、B 和 C 的 95% 一致性极限均为平均值的 1.9 mm。结论腹部 US 对胃息肉大小的测量显示出良好或极佳的读片者内部一致性。然而,对于小于 1.9 毫米的尺寸变化应谨慎解释,因为这些变化可能在测量误差范围之内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of the Size Measurement of Gallbladder Polyps by Three Different Radiologists in Abdominal Ultrasonography
Background: There is little information regarding the size measurement differences in gallbladder (GB) polyps performed by different radiologists on abdominal ultrasonography (US). Aim: To reveal the differences in GB polyp size measurements performed by different radiologists on abdominal US. Methods: From June to September 2022, the maximum diameter of 228 GB polyps was measured twice on abdominal US by one of three radiologists (a third-year radiology resident [reader A], a radiologist with 7 years of experience in abdominal US [reader B], and an abdominal radiologist with 8 years of experience in abdominal US [reader C]). Intra-reader agreements for polyp size measurements were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A Bland–Altman plot was used to visualize the differences between the first and second size measurements in each reader. Results: Reader A, reader B, and reader C evaluated 65, 77, and 86 polyps, respectively. The mean size of measured 228 GB polyps was 5.0 ± 1.9 mm. Except for the case where reader A showed moderate intra-reader agreement (0.726) for polyps with size ≤ 5 mm, all readers showed an overall high intra-reader reliability (reader A, ICC = 0.859; reader B, ICC = 0.947, reader C, ICC = 0.948), indicative of good and excellent intra-reader agreements. The 95% limit of agreement of reader A, B, and C was 1.9 mm of the mean in all three readers. Conclusions: GB polyp size measurement on abdominal US showed good or excellent intra-reader agreements. However, size changes of approximately less than 1.9 mm should be interpreted carefully because these may be within the measurement error.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Tomography
Tomography Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.50%
发文量
222
期刊介绍: TomographyTM publishes basic (technical and pre-clinical) and clinical scientific articles which involve the advancement of imaging technologies. Tomography encompasses studies that use single or multiple imaging modalities including for example CT, US, PET, SPECT, MR and hyperpolarization technologies, as well as optical modalities (i.e. bioluminescence, photoacoustic, endomicroscopy, fiber optic imaging and optical computed tomography) in basic sciences, engineering, preclinical and clinical medicine. Tomography also welcomes studies involving exploration and refinement of contrast mechanisms and image-derived metrics within and across modalities toward the development of novel imaging probes for image-based feedback and intervention. The use of imaging in biology and medicine provides unparalleled opportunities to noninvasively interrogate tissues to obtain real-time dynamic and quantitative information required for diagnosis and response to interventions and to follow evolving pathological conditions. As multi-modal studies and the complexities of imaging technologies themselves are ever increasing to provide advanced information to scientists and clinicians. Tomography provides a unique publication venue allowing investigators the opportunity to more precisely communicate integrated findings related to the diverse and heterogeneous features associated with underlying anatomical, physiological, functional, metabolic and molecular genetic activities of normal and diseased tissue. Thus Tomography publishes peer-reviewed articles which involve the broad use of imaging of any tissue and disease type including both preclinical and clinical investigations. In addition, hardware/software along with chemical and molecular probe advances are welcome as they are deemed to significantly contribute towards the long-term goal of improving the overall impact of imaging on scientific and clinical discovery.
期刊最新文献
Reading Times of Common Musculoskeletal MRI Examinations: A Survey Study. Skeletal Muscle Segmentation at the Level of the Third Lumbar Vertebra (L3) in Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Lightweight Algorithm. Radiomic Analysis of Treatment Effect for Patients with Radiation Necrosis Treated with Pentoxifylline and Vitamin E. A Joint Classification Method for COVID-19 Lesions Based on Deep Learning and Radiomics. A Scoping Review of Machine-Learning Derived Radiomic Analysis of CT and PET Imaging to Investigate Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.
×
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