Comparison of the Size Measurement of Gallbladder Polyps by Three Different Radiologists in Abdominal Ultrasonography

被引:0
|
作者
Lee, Kyu-Chong [1 ,2 ]
Kim, Jin-Kyem [1 ]
Kim, Dong-Kyu [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Armed Forces Capital Hosp, Dept Radiol, Seongnam 13574, South Korea
[2] Korea Univ, Anam Hosp, Dept Radiol, 73 Goryeodae Ro, Seoul 02841, South Korea
[3] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Res Inst Radiol Sci, Severance Hosp,Dept Radiol, 50-1 Yonsei Ro, Seoul 03722, South Korea
关键词
gallbladder; polyps; ultrasonography; reproducibility of results; RISK; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.3390/tomography10070077
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background: There is little information regarding the size measurement differences in gallbladder (GB) polyps performed by different radiologists on abdominal ultrasonography (US). Aim: To reveal the differences in GB polyp size measurements performed by different radiologists on abdominal US. Methods: From June to September 2022, the maximum diameter of 228 GB polyps was measured twice on abdominal US by one of three radiologists (a third-year radiology resident [reader A], a radiologist with 7 years of experience in abdominal US [reader B], and an abdominal radiologist with 8 years of experience in abdominal US [reader C]). Intra-reader agreements for polyp size measurements were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A Bland-Altman plot was used to visualize the differences between the first and second size measurements in each reader. Results: Reader A, reader B, and reader C evaluated 65, 77, and 86 polyps, respectively. The mean size of measured 228 GB polyps was 5.0 +/- 1.9 mm. Except for the case where reader A showed moderate intra-reader agreement (0.726) for polyps with size <= 5 mm, all readers showed an overall high intra-reader reliability (reader A, ICC = 0.859; reader B, ICC = 0.947, reader C, ICC = 0.948), indicative of good and excellent intra-reader agreements. The 95% limit of agreement of reader A, B, and C was 1.9 mm of the mean in all three readers. Conclusions: GB polyp size measurement on abdominal US showed good or excellent intra-reader agreements. However, size changes of approximately less than 1.9 mm should be interpreted carefully because these may be within the measurement error.
引用
收藏
页码:1031 / 1041
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] An evaluation of three-dimensional ultrasonography for the measurement of gallbladder volume
    Hashimoto, S
    Goto, H
    Hirooka, Y
    Itoh, A
    Ishiguro, Y
    Kojima, S
    Hirai, T
    Hayakawa, T
    Naitoh, Y
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 1999, 94 (12): : 3492 - 3496
  • [2] In vitro measurement of kidney size: Comparison of ultrasonography and MRI
    Department of Radiology, University Hospital Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    不详
    不详
    Ultrasound Med. Biol., 5 (683-688):
  • [3] In vitro measurement of kidney size: Comparison of ultrasonography and MRI
    Bakker, J
    Olree, M
    Kaatee, R
    de Lange, EE
    Beek, FJA
    ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 1998, 24 (05): : 683 - 688
  • [4] Evaluation of gallbladder motility: comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasonography
    Stads, Susanne
    Venneman, Niels G.
    Scheffer, Robert C. H.
    Samsorn, Melvin
    van Erpecum, Karel J.
    ANNALS OF HEPATOLOGY, 2007, 6 (03) : 164 - 169
  • [5] Effect comparison of three different anesthesia methods in endobronchial ultrasonography
    Gao, Chengpeng
    Jiang, Junjie
    Wang, Liping
    Wang, Tingting
    Zhang, Yixiang
    ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2022, 18 : 12 - 12
  • [6] Statistical comparison of three different measurement technologies
    Hinz, M.
    Luecker, A.
    Bracke, B.
    Klostermann, C.
    SAFETY AND RELIABILITY - SAFE SOCIETIES IN A CHANGING WORLD, 2018, : 1133 - 1138
  • [7] A comparison of ultrasonography measurement on the abdominal muscle thickness between adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and healthy subjects
    Kim, Dong-Ki
    Kim, Chang-Yong
    Lee, Byoung-Kwon
    Seo, Dongkwon
    JOURNAL OF BACK AND MUSCULOSKELETAL REHABILITATION, 2018, 31 (01) : 65 - 74
  • [8] Comparison of three different methods of ovarian reserve measurement
    Boyarsky, C
    Yartseva, A
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 1998, 13 : 163 - 163
  • [9] Comparison of three different technologies for pupil diameter measurement
    Sabine Schmitz
    Frank Krummenauer
    Sebastian Henn
    H. Burkhard Dick
    Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 2003, 241 : 472 - 477
  • [10] Comparison of three different methods of FeNO measurement in children
    Schiller, B.
    Barben, J.
    Hammer, J.
    Trachsel, D.
    SWISS MEDICAL WEEKLY, 2009, 139 (21-22) : 26S - 27S