| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Van den Bosch, T., et al.
(författare)
-
Detection of intracavitary uterine pathology using offline analysis of three-dimensional ultrasound volumes: interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. - : Wiley. - 1469-0705 .- 0960-7692. ; 40:4, s. 459-463
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective To estimate the diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement in predicting intracavitary uterine pathology at offline analysis of three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound volumes of the uterus. Methods 3D volumes (unenhanced ultrasound and gel infusion sonography with and without power Doppler, i.e. four volumes per patient) of 75 women presenting with abnormal uterine bleeding at a bleeding clinic were assessed offline by six examiners. The sonologists were asked to provide a tentative diagnosis. A histological diagnosis was obtained by hysteroscopy with biopsy or operative hysteroscopy. Proliferative, secretory or atrophic endometrium was classified as normal histology; endometrial polyps, intracavitary myomas, endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer were classified as abnormal histology. The diagnostic accuracy of the six sonologists with regard to normal/abnormal histology and interobserver agreement were estimated. Results Intracavitary pathology was diagnosed at histology in 39% of patients. Agreement between the ultrasound diagnosis and the histological diagnosis (normal vs abnormal) ranged from 67 to 83% for the six sonologists. In 45% of cases all six examiners agreed with regard to the presence/absence of intracavitary pathology. The percentage agreement between any two examiners ranged from 65 to 91% (Cohen's ?, 0.310.81). The Schouten ? for all six examiners was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.400.62), while the highest Schouten ? for any three examiners was 0.69. Conclusion When analyzing stored 3D ultrasound volumes, agreement between sonologists with regard to classifying the endometrium/uterine cavity as normal or abnormal as well as the diagnostic accuracy varied substantially. Possible actions to improve interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy include optimization of image quality and the use of a consistent technique for analyzing the 3D volumes. Copyright (c) 2012 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
|
|
| 7. |
- Van den Bosch, T., et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of gel-instillation sonography on Doppler ultrasound findings in endometrial polyps
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. - : Wiley. - 1469-0705 .- 0960-7692. ; 38:3, s. 355-359
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective Saline infusion sonohysterography has been reported to suppress the color signal within the endometrium at color or power Doppler evaluation. The aim of this study was to evaluate if gel-instillation sonography (GIS) affects the power Doppler signal in patients with endometrial polyps. Methods Ultrasound volumes of the uterus, obtained by three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of 25 women with histologically confirmed endometrial polyps, were assessed offline by six gynecologists with a special interest in gynecological ultrasound. Each woman contributed four volumes: one gray-scale volume and one power Doppler volume before GIS, and one gray-scale volume and one power Doppler volume at GIS. Power Doppler features before and after gel infusion were compared. Results At unenhanced ultrasound a pedicle artery was seen in 27-46% of cases, whereas, after gel infusion the examiners reported a pedicle artery in 30-46% of cases (Exact McNemar's test P-values ranged from 0.50 to 1.00). The level of agreement between unenhanced ultrasound and GIS ranged from 59 to 91% (Cohen's kappa values ranged from 0.17 to 0.79). There was no tendency for a pedicle artery to be identified less often at GIS than before gel instillation. Conclusion Gel infusion does not affect the power Doppler signal in patients with endometrial polyps. Copyright. (C) 2011 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
