Is there a sonographer effect? Sonographer as a source of variability for Shear Wave Elastography.

Elleen Kim, Ghada Issa, Alyssa Berube, Wendy J Smith, Alison B Chambers, Erika D Petrin, Michael D Beland, Grayson L Baird
{"title":"Is there a sonographer effect? Sonographer as a source of variability for Shear Wave Elastography.","authors":"Elleen Kim, Ghada Issa, Alyssa Berube, Wendy J Smith, Alison B Chambers, Erika D Petrin, Michael D Beland, Grayson L Baird","doi":"10.11152/mu-4521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aims to estimate the degree of sonographers as a source of systematic variance for Shear Wave Elastography (SWE) values.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Two studies estimated variance in SWE measurements: 1) within-subjects and between-sonographer differences, and 2) between-sonographer differences alone. Both used a block design with six trained sonographers scanning six healthy liver volunteers using the same machine. Following training, each sonographer obtained ten SWE measurements from the right liver lobe for each volunteer per manufacturer guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When patients were scanned on different days, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.23 was achieved, and when scanned on the same day, ICC=0.83, indicating that 17% of the variability was due to differences between sonographers. This 17% inter-sonographer variability translated into statistical and potentially clinically significant differences between sonographers-one sonographer had a SWE value of (4.99) and another (5.43), p<0.01, almost passing a clinical threshold.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SWE values are influenced by a sonographer effect, highlighting the need to standardize protocols to minimize systematic variability between sonographers. Multiple scans are justified for patients with SWE values near clinical thresholds. Since healthy volunteers exceeded the manufacturer-defined threshold, inherent variability between sonographers could challenge the reliability of clinical thresholds in practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":94138,"journal":{"name":"Medical ultrasonography","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical ultrasonography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11152/mu-4521","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: This study aims to estimate the degree of sonographers as a source of systematic variance for Shear Wave Elastography (SWE) values.

Materials and methods: Two studies estimated variance in SWE measurements: 1) within-subjects and between-sonographer differences, and 2) between-sonographer differences alone. Both used a block design with six trained sonographers scanning six healthy liver volunteers using the same machine. Following training, each sonographer obtained ten SWE measurements from the right liver lobe for each volunteer per manufacturer guidelines.

Results: When patients were scanned on different days, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.23 was achieved, and when scanned on the same day, ICC=0.83, indicating that 17% of the variability was due to differences between sonographers. This 17% inter-sonographer variability translated into statistical and potentially clinically significant differences between sonographers-one sonographer had a SWE value of (4.99) and another (5.43), p<0.01, almost passing a clinical threshold.

Conclusion: SWE values are influenced by a sonographer effect, highlighting the need to standardize protocols to minimize systematic variability between sonographers. Multiple scans are justified for patients with SWE values near clinical thresholds. Since healthy volunteers exceeded the manufacturer-defined threshold, inherent variability between sonographers could challenge the reliability of clinical thresholds in practice.

有超声检查效果吗?超声仪作为横波弹性成像变异性的来源。
目的:本研究旨在估计超声仪作为横波弹性成像(SWE)值的系统方差来源的程度。材料和方法:两项研究估计了SWE测量的差异:1)受试者内部和超声仪之间的差异,以及2)超声仪之间的差异。两种方法都采用了块设计,由6名训练有素的超声技师使用同一台机器扫描6名健康的肝脏志愿者。培训后,每个超声医师根据制造商指南从每个志愿者的右肝叶获得10次SWE测量。结果:患者在不同天扫描时,类内相关系数(ICC)=0.23,同一天扫描时,ICC=0.83,表明17%的变异是由于超声医师之间的差异。这17%的超声仪间差异转化为超声仪之间具有统计学意义和潜在临床意义的差异——一名超声仪的SWE值为4.99,另一名超声仪的SWE值为5.43。结论:SWE值受到超声仪效应的影响,强调需要标准化方案,以尽量减少超声仪之间的系统差异。对于SWE值接近临床阈值的患者,多次扫描是合理的。由于健康志愿者超过了制造商定义的阈值,超声医师之间的内在差异可能会在实践中挑战临床阈值的可靠性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信