Intraobserver and Interobserver Consistency Evaluation of Carotid Plaque Volume Measured by Different 3-Dimensional Ultrasound Methods.

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Ling Ren, Lin Yan, Xiang Fei, Yukun Luo
{"title":"Intraobserver and Interobserver Consistency Evaluation of Carotid Plaque Volume Measured by Different 3-Dimensional Ultrasound Methods.","authors":"Ling Ren,&nbsp;Lin Yan,&nbsp;Xiang Fei,&nbsp;Yukun Luo","doi":"10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the semiautomatic planimetric measurement (SAPM) method and the necessity of manually adjusted boundary measurement in 3-dimensional ultrasound measurement of plaque volume. A total of 50 patients with 82 plaques in the common carotid arteries between December 2020 and March 2021 were included in this study. Two observers measured the 3-dimensional volume of plaque for each patient in 3 different methods (contour tracing method [CTM], SAPM method without manually adjusted boundary [SAPM1], and SAPM method with manually adjusted boundary [SAPM2]). The difference in measurement time between the 3 methods was evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis H test. Intraclass correlation coefficient and 95% confidence interval were used to evaluate the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the 3 measurement modes. The Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the agreement, which was expressed as the mean difference with the 95% limits of agreement (LOA). The difference in measurement time between the 3 methods was statistically significant ( P < 0.001). Both observers' intraobserver and interobserver reliability showed well in the 3 methods (all of the intraclass correlation coefficients were >0.75). The mean differences of the plaque volume measurement were 38.17, 26.42, and 11.75 mm 3 , respectively. The agreement between CTM and SAPM2 was the best, and LOA was -57.00 to 80.51. The agreement between SAPM1 and SAPM2 and the agreement between SAPM1 and CTM were similar, and the LOAs were -126.10 to 202.40 and -158.00 to 210.80, respectively. The SAPM method may be recommended to measure plaque volume in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":49116,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000635","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the semiautomatic planimetric measurement (SAPM) method and the necessity of manually adjusted boundary measurement in 3-dimensional ultrasound measurement of plaque volume. A total of 50 patients with 82 plaques in the common carotid arteries between December 2020 and March 2021 were included in this study. Two observers measured the 3-dimensional volume of plaque for each patient in 3 different methods (contour tracing method [CTM], SAPM method without manually adjusted boundary [SAPM1], and SAPM method with manually adjusted boundary [SAPM2]). The difference in measurement time between the 3 methods was evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis H test. Intraclass correlation coefficient and 95% confidence interval were used to evaluate the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the 3 measurement modes. The Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the agreement, which was expressed as the mean difference with the 95% limits of agreement (LOA). The difference in measurement time between the 3 methods was statistically significant ( P < 0.001). Both observers' intraobserver and interobserver reliability showed well in the 3 methods (all of the intraclass correlation coefficients were >0.75). The mean differences of the plaque volume measurement were 38.17, 26.42, and 11.75 mm 3 , respectively. The agreement between CTM and SAPM2 was the best, and LOA was -57.00 to 80.51. The agreement between SAPM1 and SAPM2 and the agreement between SAPM1 and CTM were similar, and the LOAs were -126.10 to 202.40 and -158.00 to 210.80, respectively. The SAPM method may be recommended to measure plaque volume in clinical practice.

不同三维超声方法测量颈动脉斑块体积的一致性评价。
摘要:本研究旨在评估半自动平面测量(SAPM)方法在三维超声测量斑块体积中的准确性和人工调节边界测量的必要性。在2020年12月至2021年3月期间,共有50例颈总动脉中有82个斑块的患者被纳入本研究。两名观察员分别用3种不同的方法(轮廓描摹法[CTM]、未手动调节边界的SAPM法[SAPM1]和手动调节边界的SAPM法[SAPM2])测量每位患者的斑块三维体积。采用Kruskal-Wallis H检验评价3种方法测量时间的差异。用类内相关系数和95%置信区间评价3种测量模式的观察者内部和观察者之间的信度。采用Bland-Altman分析来评估一致性,其表示为95%一致性限(LOA)的平均差异。3种方法测量时间差异有统计学意义(P < 0.001)。3种方法的观察者内信度和观察者间信度均表现良好(类内相关系数均>0.75)。斑块体积测量的平均差异分别为38.17、26.42和11.75 mm 3。CTM与SAPM2的一致性最好,LOA为-57.00 ~ 80.51。SAPM1与SAPM2的一致性与SAPM1与CTM的一致性相似,LOAs分别为-126.10 ~ 202.40和-158.00 ~ 210.80。SAPM法在临床实践中可推荐用于测量斑块体积。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Ultrasound Quarterly
Ultrasound Quarterly RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
105
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ultrasound Quarterly provides coverage of the newest, most sophisticated ultrasound techniques as well as in-depth analysis of important developments in this dynamic field. The journal publishes reviews of a wide variety of topics including trans-vaginal ultrasonography, detection of fetal anomalies, color Doppler flow imaging, pediatric ultrasonography, and breast sonography. Official Journal of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信