常染色体显性多囊肾病的肾脏总体积:两种核磁共振成像方法在观察者内部和观察者之间的一致性。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences Pub Date : 2024-01-05 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.55730/1300-0144.5820
Elif Gündoğdu, Çağatay Cihan, Celal Yazici
{"title":"常染色体显性多囊肾病的肾脏总体积:两种核磁共振成像方法在观察者内部和观察者之间的一致性。","authors":"Elif Gündoğdu, Çağatay Cihan, Celal Yazici","doi":"10.55730/1300-0144.5820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>Total kidney volume (TKV) is a parameter used in both treatment decision and follow-up in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate intra- and interobserver agreement of the ellipsoid formula (EF) and manual boundary tracing method (MBTM) used in TKV measurement of ADPKD patients across different levels of experience radiologists. Additionally, the study aimed to evaluate the correlation between the EF and MBTM, which is considered the gold standard for TKV.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective evaluation was conducted on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from 55 ADPKD patients who underwent abdominal MRI between January 2017 and November 2021 to evaluate TKV. TKV measurements were performed by three independent observers (observer 1, an abdominal imaging radiologist with 5 years of experience; observer 2, a fourth-year radiology resident; observer 3, a second-year radiology resident).To assess intraobserver variability, all observers repeated the measurements at two-week intervals. The ICC was used to assess both intraobserver and interobserver variability. A comparison of the two methods was performed by linear regression for all three observers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ICC (95% CI) indicated excellent agreement between the observers for both methods (among all observers, p < 0.001). Furthermore, excellent intraobserver agreement was found between all observer measurements either EF or MBTM based on ICC (95% CI) (p < 0.001). The results of the linear regression analysis demonstrated high correlations between the two methods in all three observers (r = 0.992, p < 0.001 for the first observer; r = 0.975, p < 0.001 for the second observer; r = 0.989, p < 0.001 for the third observer).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both the EF and MBTM methods used for the measurement of TKV provided excellent intra- and interobserver reproducibility. The EF is as accurate and precise as the MBTM. It may therefore be preferred in radiology departments with heavy workload, as it is a reliable method for rapid and easy assessment, independent of experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":23361,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11265870/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Total kidney volume in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: intraobserver and interobserver agreement of two methods with MRI.\",\"authors\":\"Elif Gündoğdu, Çağatay Cihan, Celal Yazici\",\"doi\":\"10.55730/1300-0144.5820\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>Total kidney volume (TKV) is a parameter used in both treatment decision and follow-up in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate intra- and interobserver agreement of the ellipsoid formula (EF) and manual boundary tracing method (MBTM) used in TKV measurement of ADPKD patients across different levels of experience radiologists. Additionally, the study aimed to evaluate the correlation between the EF and MBTM, which is considered the gold standard for TKV.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective evaluation was conducted on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from 55 ADPKD patients who underwent abdominal MRI between January 2017 and November 2021 to evaluate TKV. TKV measurements were performed by three independent observers (observer 1, an abdominal imaging radiologist with 5 years of experience; observer 2, a fourth-year radiology resident; observer 3, a second-year radiology resident).To assess intraobserver variability, all observers repeated the measurements at two-week intervals. The ICC was used to assess both intraobserver and interobserver variability. A comparison of the two methods was performed by linear regression for all three observers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ICC (95% CI) indicated excellent agreement between the observers for both methods (among all observers, p < 0.001). Furthermore, excellent intraobserver agreement was found between all observer measurements either EF or MBTM based on ICC (95% CI) (p < 0.001). The results of the linear regression analysis demonstrated high correlations between the two methods in all three observers (r = 0.992, p < 0.001 for the first observer; r = 0.975, p < 0.001 for the second observer; r = 0.989, p < 0.001 for the third observer).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both the EF and MBTM methods used for the measurement of TKV provided excellent intra- and interobserver reproducibility. The EF is as accurate and precise as the MBTM. It may therefore be preferred in radiology departments with heavy workload, as it is a reliable method for rapid and easy assessment, independent of experience.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11265870/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0144.5820\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0144.5820","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:肾脏总体积(TKV)是用于常染色体显性多囊肾(ADPKD)患者治疗决策和随访的一个参数。本研究的目的是评估不同经验水平的放射科医生在测量 ADPKD 患者肾脏总体积时使用的椭圆体公式(EF)和手动边界追踪法(MBTM)在观察者内部和观察者之间的一致性。此外,该研究还旨在评估 EF 与 MBTM 之间的相关性,后者被认为是 TKV 的黄金标准:对 55 名 ADPKD 患者的磁共振成像(MRI)数据进行了回顾性评估,这些患者在 2017 年 1 月至 2021 年 11 月期间接受了腹部磁共振成像,以评估 TKV。TKV 测量由三名独立观察员(观察员 1 是一名有 5 年经验的腹部成像放射科医生;观察员 2 是一名放射科四年级住院医师;观察员 3 是一名放射科二年级住院医师)进行。为了评估观察员内部的变异性,所有观察员每隔两周重复一次测量。ICC 用于评估观察者内部和观察者之间的变异性。通过线性回归对所有三名观察者的两种方法进行比较:结果:ICC(95% CI)表明两种方法在观察者之间的一致性非常好(在所有观察者中,P < 0.001)。此外,根据 ICC (95% CI),所有观察者的 EF 或 MBTM 测量结果之间的观察者内一致性极佳(P < 0.001)。线性回归分析的结果表明,所有三名观察者的两种方法之间都存在高度相关性(第一名观察者的相关系数为 0.992,p < 0.001;第二名观察者的相关系数为 0.975,p < 0.001;第三名观察者的相关系数为 0.989,p < 0.001):用于测量 TKV 的 EF 和 MBTM 方法在观察者内部和观察者之间都具有极佳的再现性。EF 与 MBTM 一样精确。因此,在工作量繁重的放射科,它可能是首选,因为它是一种不受经验影响、快速简便评估的可靠方法。
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
Total kidney volume in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: intraobserver and interobserver agreement of two methods with MRI.

Background/aim: Total kidney volume (TKV) is a parameter used in both treatment decision and follow-up in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate intra- and interobserver agreement of the ellipsoid formula (EF) and manual boundary tracing method (MBTM) used in TKV measurement of ADPKD patients across different levels of experience radiologists. Additionally, the study aimed to evaluate the correlation between the EF and MBTM, which is considered the gold standard for TKV.

Materials and methods: A retrospective evaluation was conducted on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from 55 ADPKD patients who underwent abdominal MRI between January 2017 and November 2021 to evaluate TKV. TKV measurements were performed by three independent observers (observer 1, an abdominal imaging radiologist with 5 years of experience; observer 2, a fourth-year radiology resident; observer 3, a second-year radiology resident).To assess intraobserver variability, all observers repeated the measurements at two-week intervals. The ICC was used to assess both intraobserver and interobserver variability. A comparison of the two methods was performed by linear regression for all three observers.

Results: The ICC (95% CI) indicated excellent agreement between the observers for both methods (among all observers, p < 0.001). Furthermore, excellent intraobserver agreement was found between all observer measurements either EF or MBTM based on ICC (95% CI) (p < 0.001). The results of the linear regression analysis demonstrated high correlations between the two methods in all three observers (r = 0.992, p < 0.001 for the first observer; r = 0.975, p < 0.001 for the second observer; r = 0.989, p < 0.001 for the third observer).

Conclusion: Both the EF and MBTM methods used for the measurement of TKV provided excellent intra- and interobserver reproducibility. The EF is as accurate and precise as the MBTM. It may therefore be preferred in radiology departments with heavy workload, as it is a reliable method for rapid and easy assessment, independent of experience.

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
Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences
Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Turkish Journal of Medical sciences is a peer-reviewed comprehensive resource that provides critical up-to-date information on the broad spectrum of general medical sciences. The Journal intended to publish original medical scientific papers regarding the priority based on the prominence, significance, and timeliness of the findings. However since the audience of the Journal is not limited to any subspeciality in a wide variety of medical disciplines, the papers focusing on the technical  details of a given medical  subspeciality may not be evaluated for publication.
期刊最新文献
Targeted temperature management in obstetrics for the prevention of perinatal encephalopathy. Evaluation of volume measurements of neuroanatomical structures related to speech in multiple sclerosis patients. Relationship between functional status and fatigue after COVID-19 infection: a multicenter study from Türkiye. Prediction of inherited metabolic disorders using tandem mass spectrometry data with the help of artificial neural networks. Spinal stabilization exercises for transversus abdominis and lumbar multifidus thickness via telerehabilitation and face-to-face approaches in patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial.
×
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