SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Utökad sökning

id:"swepub:oai:prod.swepub.kib.ki.se:116711669"
 

Sökning: id:"swepub:oai:prod.swepub.kib.ki.se:116711669" > Reliability and sen...

LIBRIS Formathandbok  (Information om MARC21)
FältnamnIndikatorerMetadata
00003320naa a2200397 4500
001oai:prod.swepub.kib.ki.se:116711669
003SwePub
008240701s2008 | |||||||||||000 ||eng|
0247 a http://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:1167116692 URI
0247 a https://doi.org/10.1159/0001138632 DOI
040 a (SwePub)ki
041 a engb eng
042 9 SwePub
072 7a ref2 swepub-contenttype
072 7a art2 swepub-publicationtype
1001 a Gouw, AA4 aut
2451 0a Reliability and sensitivity of visual scales versus volumetry for evaluating white matter hyperintensity progression
264 c 2008-01-24
264 1b S. Karger AG,c 2008
520 a <i>Background:</i> Investigating associations between the change of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) and clinical symptoms over time is crucial for establishing a causal relationship. However, the most suitable method for measuring WMH progression has not been established yet. We compared the reliability and sensitivity of cross-sectional and longitudinal visual scales with volumetry for measuring WMH progression. <i>Methods:</i> Twenty MRI scan pairs (interval 2 years) were included from the Amsterdam center of the LADIS study. Semi-automated volumetry of WMH was performed twice by one rater. Three cross-sectional scales (Fazekas Scale, Age-Related White Matter Changes Scale, Scheltens Scale) and two progression scales (Rotterdam Progression Scale, Schmidt Progression Scale) were scored by 4 and repeated by 2 raters. <i>Results:</i> Mean WMH volume (24.6 ± 27.9 ml at baseline) increased by 4.6 ± 5.1 ml [median volume change (range) = 2.7 (–0.6 to 15.7) ml]. Measuring volumetric change in WMH was reliable (intraobserver:intraclass coefficient = 0.88). All visual scales showed significant change of WMH over time, although the sensitivity was highest for both of the progression scales. Proportional volumetric change of WMH correlated best with the Rotterdam Progression Scale (Spearman’s r = 0.80, p < 0.001) and the Schmidt Progression Scale (Spearman’s r = 0.64, p < 0.01). Although all scales were reliable for assessment of WMH cross-sectionally, WMH progression assessment using visual scales was less reliable, except for the Rotterdam Progression scale which had moderate to good reliability [weighted Cohen’s ĸ = 0.63 (intraobserver), 0.59 (interobserver)]. <i>Conclusion:</i> To determine change in WMH, dedicated progression scales are more sensitive and/or reliable and correlate better with volumetric volume change than cross-sectional scales.
7001 a van der Flier, WM4 aut
7001 a van Straaten, ECW4 aut
7001 a Pantoni, L4 aut
7001 a Bastos-Leite, AJ4 aut
7001 a Inzitari, D4 aut
7001 a Erkinjuntti, T4 aut
7001 a Wahlund, LOu Karolinska Institutet4 aut
7001 a Ryberg, C4 aut
7001 a Schmidt, R4 aut
7001 a Fazekas, F4 aut
7001 a Scheltens, P4 aut
7001 a Barkhof, F4 aut
7102 a Karolinska Institutet4 org
7730 t Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland)d : S. Karger AGg 25:3, s. 247-253q 25:3<247-253x 1421-9786x 1015-9770
8564 8u http://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:116711669
8564 8u https://doi.org/10.1159/000113863

Hitta via bibliotek

Till lärosätets databas

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy