American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2009
Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasound for determining fibroid burden: implications for research and clinical care.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Levens Eric D, Wesley Robert, Premkumar Ahalya, Blocker Wendy, Nieman Lynnette K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare magnetic resonance and ultrasound imaging for uterine fibroid measurement.
STUDY DESIGN: Eighteen women undergoing hysterectomy for symptomatic fibroids underwent preoperative pelvic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Resected fibroids were correlated with the images. Weighted kappa agreement statistics and Spearman correlations for patient characteristics were calculated.
RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging identified 121 of 151 pathologically confirmed fibroids, yielding 91% positive predictive value (95% confidence interval [CI], 85-95) and 80% sensitivity (95% CI, 73-86). Positive predictive value and sensitivity for ultrasound were 97% (95% CI, 89-100) and 40% (95% CI, 32-48), respectively. Mean diameter-equivalent discrepancies between imaging and pathologic measurements were 0.51 +/- 0.68 cm for magnetic resonance imaging and 0.76 +/- 0.88 cm for ultrasound. kappa statistics comparing imaging to pathology showed better agreement for magnetic resonance than ultrasound (kappa = 0.60 vs 0.36). The number of fibroids detected by magnetic resonance imaging predicted measurement errors (r = 0.76; P = .0002).
CONCLUSION: Superior sensitivity and minimal measurement discrepancies suggest magnetic resonance imaging may be preferentially used for fibroid assessment in clinical research.
STUDY DESIGN: Eighteen women undergoing hysterectomy for symptomatic fibroids underwent preoperative pelvic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Resected fibroids were correlated with the images. Weighted kappa agreement statistics and Spearman correlations for patient characteristics were calculated.
RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging identified 121 of 151 pathologically confirmed fibroids, yielding 91% positive predictive value (95% confidence interval [CI], 85-95) and 80% sensitivity (95% CI, 73-86). Positive predictive value and sensitivity for ultrasound were 97% (95% CI, 89-100) and 40% (95% CI, 32-48), respectively. Mean diameter-equivalent discrepancies between imaging and pathologic measurements were 0.51 +/- 0.68 cm for magnetic resonance imaging and 0.76 +/- 0.88 cm for ultrasound. kappa statistics comparing imaging to pathology showed better agreement for magnetic resonance than ultrasound (kappa = 0.60 vs 0.36). The number of fibroids detected by magnetic resonance imaging predicted measurement errors (r = 0.76; P = .0002).
CONCLUSION: Superior sensitivity and minimal measurement discrepancies suggest magnetic resonance imaging may be preferentially used for fibroid assessment in clinical research.