These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of the Size Measurement of Gallbladder Polyps by Three Different Radiologists in Abdominal Ultrasonography.
    Author: Lee KC, Kim JK, Kim DK.
    Journal: Tomography; 2024 Jul 03; 10(7):1031-1041. PubMed ID: 39058049.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]