Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2023
Evaluation of Non-Compressive Transvaginal Cervical Elastography as a Quantitative Imaging Biomarker in Pregnancy: A Repeatability and Reliability Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Janssen Matthew K, Koelper Nathan, Weatherby Michele, Werth Christina, Schwartz Nadav
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Non-compressive strain elastography has been proposed as a novel quantitative imaging biomarker for assessing the structure and function of the cervix. The current study aims to assess the repeatability, and intra- and inter-observer reliability of transvaginal non-compressive cervical strain elastography in a clinical setting.
METHODS: We conducted a dual-phase single-center prospective feasibility study of singleton gestations >16-weeks gestation that required a clinically-indicated transvaginal ultrasound. Each study participant, n = 43 in phase 1 and n = 13 in phase 2, had elastography performed by two trained observers that each performed multiple image acquisitions. We performed a multivariable regression to adjust for changes in clinical characteristics between study phases and calculated the repeatability coefficients, limits of agreement, and intraclass correlations for each quantitative elastography parameter. We compared quantitative elastography parameters to cervical length measurements, acquired from the same images.
RESULTS: The repeatability coefficients and percent limits of agreement were wide for all of the quantitative elastography parameters, demonstrating poor repeatability. Intraclass correlation coefficients were poor-moderate for both intra-observer (0.31-0.77) and inter-observer reliability (0.35-0.77) in both study phases, while cervical length showed excellent reliability with intraclass correlations consistently >0.90.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-compressive transvaginal strain cervical elastography did not demonstrate adequate repeatability or reliability. Our results highlight the importance of rigorously assessing novel quantitative imaging biomarkers before clinical application.
METHODS: We conducted a dual-phase single-center prospective feasibility study of singleton gestations >16-weeks gestation that required a clinically-indicated transvaginal ultrasound. Each study participant, n = 43 in phase 1 and n = 13 in phase 2, had elastography performed by two trained observers that each performed multiple image acquisitions. We performed a multivariable regression to adjust for changes in clinical characteristics between study phases and calculated the repeatability coefficients, limits of agreement, and intraclass correlations for each quantitative elastography parameter. We compared quantitative elastography parameters to cervical length measurements, acquired from the same images.
RESULTS: The repeatability coefficients and percent limits of agreement were wide for all of the quantitative elastography parameters, demonstrating poor repeatability. Intraclass correlation coefficients were poor-moderate for both intra-observer (0.31-0.77) and inter-observer reliability (0.35-0.77) in both study phases, while cervical length showed excellent reliability with intraclass correlations consistently >0.90.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-compressive transvaginal strain cervical elastography did not demonstrate adequate repeatability or reliability. Our results highlight the importance of rigorously assessing novel quantitative imaging biomarkers before clinical application.