Interobserver Agreement Between Primary Sonographers and Secondary Overreaders for Screening and Surveillance Liver Ultrasounds Using Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System.

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Adrian Dawkins, Leslie W Nelson, Vaibhav Gulati, Angela Stepp, Fanny Chapelin, Aman Khurana
{"title":"Interobserver Agreement Between Primary Sonographers and Secondary Overreaders for Screening and Surveillance Liver Ultrasounds Using Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System.","authors":"Adrian Dawkins,&nbsp;Leslie W Nelson,&nbsp;Vaibhav Gulati,&nbsp;Angela Stepp,&nbsp;Fanny Chapelin,&nbsp;Aman Khurana","doi":"10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>The authors aim to identify if primary sonographers and secondary reviewers, both radiologists and sonographers, are likely to assign the same Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (US LI-RADS) scores for liver surveillance ultrasounds. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Sonographers were familiarized with US LI-RADS via radiologist-led lectures. Three sonographers prospectively scored 170 screening examinations using US LI-RADS recommendations. Scans were retrospectively rescored by a fourth sonographer and a radiologist, both of whom were blinded to the original scores. Results were analyzed with weighted and nonweighted Cohen kappa statistical analysis methods. There was near-perfect agreement between primary and secondary sonographers and primary sonographer and radiologist (kappa of 0.87 and 0.92, respectively) for US LI-RADS category (cat) scores. However, only substantial and moderate agreements were noted for visualization (vis) scores between primary and secondary sonographers and primary sonographer and radiologist (weighted kappa of 0.73 and 0.48, respectively). There was vis score disagreement between the primary sonographer and radiologist in 60 (35.3%) cases. In 35 (20%) cases, the radiologist assigned a lower/more conservative vis score. There was vis score disagreement between the primary and secondary reviewing sonographers in 30 (17.6%) cases. In 12 (7%) cases, the secondary sonographer assigned a more conservative vis score. Although a good degree of concordance was noted between the groups, radiologists will need to generate their own US LI-RADS scoring to accurately reflect their impression and appropriately steer management.</p>","PeriodicalId":49116,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000566","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: 2

Abstract

Abstract: The authors aim to identify if primary sonographers and secondary reviewers, both radiologists and sonographers, are likely to assign the same Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (US LI-RADS) scores for liver surveillance ultrasounds. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Sonographers were familiarized with US LI-RADS via radiologist-led lectures. Three sonographers prospectively scored 170 screening examinations using US LI-RADS recommendations. Scans were retrospectively rescored by a fourth sonographer and a radiologist, both of whom were blinded to the original scores. Results were analyzed with weighted and nonweighted Cohen kappa statistical analysis methods. There was near-perfect agreement between primary and secondary sonographers and primary sonographer and radiologist (kappa of 0.87 and 0.92, respectively) for US LI-RADS category (cat) scores. However, only substantial and moderate agreements were noted for visualization (vis) scores between primary and secondary sonographers and primary sonographer and radiologist (weighted kappa of 0.73 and 0.48, respectively). There was vis score disagreement between the primary sonographer and radiologist in 60 (35.3%) cases. In 35 (20%) cases, the radiologist assigned a lower/more conservative vis score. There was vis score disagreement between the primary and secondary reviewing sonographers in 30 (17.6%) cases. In 12 (7%) cases, the secondary sonographer assigned a more conservative vis score. Although a good degree of concordance was noted between the groups, radiologists will need to generate their own US LI-RADS scoring to accurately reflect their impression and appropriately steer management.

使用超声肝脏成像报告和数据系统筛查和监测肝脏超声的主要超声医师和次要超读者之间的观察者间协议。
摘要:作者的目的是确定主要超声医师和次要审查员,无论是放射科医生还是超声医师,是否可能为肝脏监测超声分配相同的超声肝脏成像报告和数据系统(US LI-RADS)评分。已获得机构审查委员会的批准。超声医师通过放射科医生主持的讲座熟悉了美国LI-RADS。三名超声医师使用美国LI-RADS推荐对170项筛查检查进行前瞻性评分。第四名超声医师和一名放射科医师回顾性地恢复了扫描结果,他们都对原始评分不知情。采用加权和非加权Cohen kappa统计分析方法对结果进行分析。对于美国LI-RADS类别(cat)评分,初级和二级超声医师以及初级超声医师和放射科医师之间的kappa值接近完美一致(分别为0.87和0.92)。然而,主要超声医师和次要超声医师以及主要超声医师和放射科医师之间的可视化(vis)评分只有实质性和适度的一致(加权kappa分别为0.73和0.48)。60例(35.3%)超声医师与放射科医师的评分不一致。在35例(20%)病例中,放射科医生给出了较低/更保守的视觉评分。30例(17.6%)主、次复查超声评分不一致。在12例(7%)病例中,二级超声医师给出了更为保守的视觉评分。尽管两组之间有良好的一致性,放射科医生需要生成他们自己的美国LI-RADS评分,以准确反映他们的印象并适当地指导管理。
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
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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