MUGA处理:使用手动和自动化方法对操作员内部和操作员之间的可变性影响

Saude Tecnologia Pub Date : 2020-03-26 DOI:10.25758/SET.2225
Rita Belo, C. Alves, C. Carvalhal, S. Figueiredo, E. Carolino, L. Vieira
{"title":"MUGA处理:使用手动和自动化方法对操作员内部和操作员之间的可变性影响","authors":"Rita Belo, C. Alves, C. Carvalhal, S. Figueiredo, E. Carolino, L. Vieira","doi":"10.25758/SET.2225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction – Multigated acquisition (MUGA) scan is mainly used for the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients who undergo cardiotoxic chemotherapy drugs. When applying automatic (A) or manual (M) processing methods, some biases in the quantitative metrics can be obtained. The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of A and M methods, specifically, the inter and intraoperative variability in accordance with the professional experience. Methods – A retrospective study was performed with 14 MUGA exams available in ESTeSL’s Xeleris™ Functional Imaging Workstation v. 1.0628 database. Three operators (OP) with no professional experience and two with more than 10 years of experience, processed every study five times for each method, using the EF Analysis™ and the Peak Filling Rate™. To perform the multiple comparisons, the Repeated Measures ANOVA, Friedman, t-test and Wilcoxon tests were used, considering α=0.05. Results – Four of the OP presented statistically significant differences between methods in one or more parameters; similar values between experienced OP and between the non-experienced were observed when the A method was applied, and higher discrepancies were present for all parameters obtained by the M mode; higher LVEF, peak filling rate, and peak empying rate values were observed for the M method. Conclusion – Variability was found when comparing M and A processing methods, as well as interoperator variability associated with their level of experience. Despite that, there was a trend of less variability between the two experienced OP and in the A method.","PeriodicalId":30555,"journal":{"name":"Saude Tecnologia","volume":"1 1","pages":"22-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"MUGA processing: intra and interoperator variability impact using manual and automated methods\",\"authors\":\"Rita Belo, C. Alves, C. Carvalhal, S. Figueiredo, E. Carolino, L. Vieira\",\"doi\":\"10.25758/SET.2225\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction – Multigated acquisition (MUGA) scan is mainly used for the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients who undergo cardiotoxic chemotherapy drugs. When applying automatic (A) or manual (M) processing methods, some biases in the quantitative metrics can be obtained. The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of A and M methods, specifically, the inter and intraoperative variability in accordance with the professional experience. Methods – A retrospective study was performed with 14 MUGA exams available in ESTeSL’s Xeleris™ Functional Imaging Workstation v. 1.0628 database. Three operators (OP) with no professional experience and two with more than 10 years of experience, processed every study five times for each method, using the EF Analysis™ and the Peak Filling Rate™. To perform the multiple comparisons, the Repeated Measures ANOVA, Friedman, t-test and Wilcoxon tests were used, considering α=0.05. Results – Four of the OP presented statistically significant differences between methods in one or more parameters; similar values between experienced OP and between the non-experienced were observed when the A method was applied, and higher discrepancies were present for all parameters obtained by the M mode; higher LVEF, peak filling rate, and peak empying rate values were observed for the M method. Conclusion – Variability was found when comparing M and A processing methods, as well as interoperator variability associated with their level of experience. Despite that, there was a trend of less variability between the two experienced OP and in the A method.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Saude Tecnologia\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"22-27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Saude Tecnologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25758/SET.2225\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saude Tecnologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25758/SET.2225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

多门采集(MUGA)扫描主要用于评估接受心脏毒性化疗药物患者的左室射血分数(LVEF)。当采用自动(A)或手动(M)处理方法时,定量指标会产生一些偏差。本研究的目的是根据专业经验评估A和M方法的影响,特别是术中和术中变异性。方法:对ESTeSL的Xeleris™功能成像工作站v. 1.0628数据库中提供的14例MUGA检查进行回顾性研究。三名没有专业经验的操作员(OP)和两名有10年以上经验的操作员,使用EF分析™和峰值填充率™对每种方法进行五次处理。为了进行多重比较,考虑α=0.05,采用重复测量方差分析、Friedman检验、t检验和Wilcoxon检验。结果:4个OP在一个或多个参数上呈现统计学显著差异;当采用A方法时,有经验的OP和没有经验的OP之间的值相似,并且M模式获得的所有参数都存在较大的差异;M法观察到更高的LVEF、峰填充率和峰清空率值。结论-在比较M和A处理方法时发现了可变性,以及与他们的经验水平相关的操作人员的可变性。尽管如此,两种经验OP和a方法之间的变化趋势较小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
MUGA processing: intra and interoperator variability impact using manual and automated methods
Introduction – Multigated acquisition (MUGA) scan is mainly used for the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients who undergo cardiotoxic chemotherapy drugs. When applying automatic (A) or manual (M) processing methods, some biases in the quantitative metrics can be obtained. The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of A and M methods, specifically, the inter and intraoperative variability in accordance with the professional experience. Methods – A retrospective study was performed with 14 MUGA exams available in ESTeSL’s Xeleris™ Functional Imaging Workstation v. 1.0628 database. Three operators (OP) with no professional experience and two with more than 10 years of experience, processed every study five times for each method, using the EF Analysis™ and the Peak Filling Rate™. To perform the multiple comparisons, the Repeated Measures ANOVA, Friedman, t-test and Wilcoxon tests were used, considering α=0.05. Results – Four of the OP presented statistically significant differences between methods in one or more parameters; similar values between experienced OP and between the non-experienced were observed when the A method was applied, and higher discrepancies were present for all parameters obtained by the M mode; higher LVEF, peak filling rate, and peak empying rate values were observed for the M method. Conclusion – Variability was found when comparing M and A processing methods, as well as interoperator variability associated with their level of experience. Despite that, there was a trend of less variability between the two experienced OP and in the A method.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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