Radiology · 1997
MR imaging of the rotator cuff tendon: interobserver agreement and analysis of interpretive errors.
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.
Balich S M, Sheley R C, Brown T R, Sauser D D, Quinn S F
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate accuracy in interpretation of shoulder magnetic resonance (MR) images and interobserver agreement and to characterize the types of errors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five radiologists with varying experience independently and retrospectively twice interpreted the MR images of 222 symptomatic patients who underwent both MR imaging and shoulder arthroscopy. The first interpretation was a blind review; the second was with knowledge of the arthroscopic findings.
RESULTS: For full-thickness tears, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 84%-96%, 94%-98%, and 92%-97%, respectively, and for partial tears, 35%-44%, 85%-97%, and 77%-87%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between readers in the detection of partial or full-thickness tears. There was a statistically significant difference between readers in the no-tear category. Cohen kappa values generally indicated improved interobserver agreement proportional to the readers' experience (full-thickness tears, 0.731-0.881; partial tears, 0.168-0.443).
CONCLUSION: Diagnosis of a full-thickness tear can be learned to a high degree of accuracy. Despite the radiologist's level of experience and knowledge of the arthroscopic findings, the sensitivity for diagnosis of partial tears is poor.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five radiologists with varying experience independently and retrospectively twice interpreted the MR images of 222 symptomatic patients who underwent both MR imaging and shoulder arthroscopy. The first interpretation was a blind review; the second was with knowledge of the arthroscopic findings.
RESULTS: For full-thickness tears, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 84%-96%, 94%-98%, and 92%-97%, respectively, and for partial tears, 35%-44%, 85%-97%, and 77%-87%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between readers in the detection of partial or full-thickness tears. There was a statistically significant difference between readers in the no-tear category. Cohen kappa values generally indicated improved interobserver agreement proportional to the readers' experience (full-thickness tears, 0.731-0.881; partial tears, 0.168-0.443).
CONCLUSION: Diagnosis of a full-thickness tear can be learned to a high degree of accuracy. Despite the radiologist's level of experience and knowledge of the arthroscopic findings, the sensitivity for diagnosis of partial tears is poor.