Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2016
Accuracy and reliability of oral maxillofacial radiologists when evaluating cone-beam computed tomography imaging for adenoid hypertrophy screening: a comparison with nasopharyngoscopy.
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.
Pachêco-Pereira Camila, Alsufyani Noura A, Major Michael P, Flores-Mir Carlos
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine how accurate and reliable oral maxillofacial radiologists (OMFRs) are in screening for adenoid hypertrophy when using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging compared with nasopharyngoscopy (NP).
STUDY DESIGN: CBCT scans of 10 patients with distinct levels of adenoid hypertrophy were randomly selected. Fourteen board-certified OMFRs classified the levels of hypertrophy. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess accuracy by comparing their diagnosis against an NP diagnosis, which is the reference standard. OMFRs' interreliability was assessed. Kappa statistics were used to analyze dichotomous data from healthy and unhealthy patients.
RESULTS: Overall, the reliability among OMFRs was good (ICC = 0.79 with confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.93). The "statistical mode" was very good (ICC = 0.81; CI 0.43-0.94). The accuracy of OMFRs against NP was good (ICCmean = 0.69; CI 0.43-0.94). On average, the Kappa statistics (Kmean = 0.77; CI 0.62-0.92) demonstrated a good agreement between OMFRs and NP diagnoses. The individualized results from each evaluator were presented and investigated according to their performance.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the reference standard, the accuracy of OMFRs to classify adenoid hypertrophy on a four-level scale was moderate to strong and improved when adenoid hypertrophy was classified as healthy or unhealthy. The reliability of the OMFRs was greater than 80%, assuring their consistency and reliability on screening adenoids hypertrophy via CBCT.
STUDY DESIGN: CBCT scans of 10 patients with distinct levels of adenoid hypertrophy were randomly selected. Fourteen board-certified OMFRs classified the levels of hypertrophy. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess accuracy by comparing their diagnosis against an NP diagnosis, which is the reference standard. OMFRs' interreliability was assessed. Kappa statistics were used to analyze dichotomous data from healthy and unhealthy patients.
RESULTS: Overall, the reliability among OMFRs was good (ICC = 0.79 with confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.93). The "statistical mode" was very good (ICC = 0.81; CI 0.43-0.94). The accuracy of OMFRs against NP was good (ICCmean = 0.69; CI 0.43-0.94). On average, the Kappa statistics (Kmean = 0.77; CI 0.62-0.92) demonstrated a good agreement between OMFRs and NP diagnoses. The individualized results from each evaluator were presented and investigated according to their performance.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the reference standard, the accuracy of OMFRs to classify adenoid hypertrophy on a four-level scale was moderate to strong and improved when adenoid hypertrophy was classified as healthy or unhealthy. The reliability of the OMFRs was greater than 80%, assuring their consistency and reliability on screening adenoids hypertrophy via CBCT.