Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2024
Self-reported diagnostic confidence predicts diagnostic accuracy in axial spondyloarthritis imaging.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ulas Sevtap Tugce, Radny Felix, Ziegeler Katharina, Eshed Iris, Greese Juliane, Deppe Dominik, Stelbrink Carsten, Biesen Robert, Haibel Hildrun, Rios Rodriguez Valeria, Rademacher Judith, Protopopov Mikhail, Proft Fabian, Poddubnyy Denis, Diekhoff Torsten
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Reporting diagnostic confidence (DC) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) imaging is recommended by the ASAS guidelines. Our aim was to investigate whether self-reported DC predicts diagnostic accuracy in axSpA imaging using X-ray (XR), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis including 163 patients with low back pain (89 axSpA and 56 non-axSpA). Nine blinded readers with different experience levels [inexperienced (<1 year), semi-experienced (3-8 years) and experienced (>12 years)] scored the sacroiliac joint images for compatibility with axSpA. DC was reported on a scale from 1 (not sure) to 10 (very sure). Mean DC scores and standard deviations were calculated for correct and incorrect responses using XR, CT, MRI, XR+MRI and CT+MRI. Differences in DC were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: DC scores were higher for correct axSpA diagnoses and differed significantly between correct and incorrect responses for all modalities (P < 0.001), with a mean DC of 7.1 ± 2.1 and 6.3 ± 2.1 for XR, 8.3 ± 1.8 and 6.7 ± 2.0 for CT, 8.1 ± 1.9 and 6.2 ± 1.9 for MRI, 8.2 ± 1.8 and 6.7 ± 1.8 for XR+MRI and 8.4 ± 1.8 and 6.8 ± 1.8 for CT+MRI, respectively. This was also the case when looking at the results by experience group, except for XR in the inexperienced group.
CONCLUSION: Providing self-reported DC in radiological reports is useful information to predict diagnostic reliability in axSpA imaging.
METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis including 163 patients with low back pain (89 axSpA and 56 non-axSpA). Nine blinded readers with different experience levels [inexperienced (<1 year), semi-experienced (3-8 years) and experienced (>12 years)] scored the sacroiliac joint images for compatibility with axSpA. DC was reported on a scale from 1 (not sure) to 10 (very sure). Mean DC scores and standard deviations were calculated for correct and incorrect responses using XR, CT, MRI, XR+MRI and CT+MRI. Differences in DC were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: DC scores were higher for correct axSpA diagnoses and differed significantly between correct and incorrect responses for all modalities (P < 0.001), with a mean DC of 7.1 ± 2.1 and 6.3 ± 2.1 for XR, 8.3 ± 1.8 and 6.7 ± 2.0 for CT, 8.1 ± 1.9 and 6.2 ± 1.9 for MRI, 8.2 ± 1.8 and 6.7 ± 1.8 for XR+MRI and 8.4 ± 1.8 and 6.8 ± 1.8 for CT+MRI, respectively. This was also the case when looking at the results by experience group, except for XR in the inexperienced group.
CONCLUSION: Providing self-reported DC in radiological reports is useful information to predict diagnostic reliability in axSpA imaging.