Lee KC, Kim JK, Kim DK. Comparison of the Size Measurement of Gallbladder Polyps by Three Different Radiologists in Abdominal Ultrasonography.
Tomography 2024;
10:1031-1041. [PMID:
39058049 PMCID:
PMC11281002 DOI:
10.3390/tomography10070077]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2024] [Revised: 06/25/2024] [Accepted: 06/26/2024] [Indexed: 07/28/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
There is little information regarding the size measurement differences in gallbladder (GB) polyps performed by different radiologists on abdominal ultrasonography (US).
AIM
To reveal the differences in GB polyp size measurements performed by different radiologists on abdominal US.
METHODS
From June to September 2022, the maximum diameter of 228 GB polyps was measured twice on abdominal US by one of three radiologists (a third-year radiology resident [reader A], a radiologist with 7 years of experience in abdominal US [reader B], and an abdominal radiologist with 8 years of experience in abdominal US [reader C]). Intra-reader agreements for polyp size measurements were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A Bland-Altman plot was used to visualize the differences between the first and second size measurements in each reader.
RESULTS
Reader A, reader B, and reader C evaluated 65, 77, and 86 polyps, respectively. The mean size of measured 228 GB polyps was 5.0 ± 1.9 mm. Except for the case where reader A showed moderate intra-reader agreement (0.726) for polyps with size ≤ 5 mm, all readers showed an overall high intra-reader reliability (reader A, ICC = 0.859; reader B, ICC = 0.947, reader C, ICC = 0.948), indicative of good and excellent intra-reader agreements. The 95% limit of agreement of reader A, B, and C was 1.9 mm of the mean in all three readers.
CONCLUSIONS
GB polyp size measurement on abdominal US showed good or excellent intra-reader agreements. However, size changes of approximately less than 1.9 mm should be interpreted carefully because these may be within the measurement error.
Collapse