4.6 Article

Interrater Reliability of 99mTc-DMSA Scintigraphy Performed as Planar Scan vs. SPECT/Low Dose CT for Diagnosing Renal Scarring in Children

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10121101

关键词

kidney disease; kidney function; paediatric; pyelonephritis; renal scarring

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tc-99m-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) scintigraphy is currently the method of choice for assessing renal scarring in children, but it is not established whether conducting the scan as a single photon emission tomography combined with low-dose CT (SPECT/ldCT) scan provides additional diagnostic benefits when compared to conventional planar scintigraphy. In the present study, we evaluated the interrater reliability of DMSA SPECT/ldCT vs. planar DMSA scintigraphy for diagnosing renal scarring. Methods: Two nuclear medicine physicians blinded to patient data retrospectively analysed all paediatric Tc-99m-DMSA scintigraphes that were conducted in our department for the assessment of post pyelonephritis renal scarring between 2011 and 2016. All scintigraphies included both a planar scan and SPECT/ldCT, and were performed on either a Phillips Precedence 16 slice CT or a Siemens Symbia 16 slice CT. The readers were blinded to each other's readings and to patient data, and assessed all scans dichotomously for evidence of renal scarring. For each scan, the readers further noted if they were confident in their interpretation. Results: A total of 46 pairs of planar SPECT/ldCT DMSA scans were included. The readers were unconfident about their interpretation of 40% of the planar scans and 5% of the SPECT/ldCT scans. The interrater agreement rate was 72% for planar scans and 91% for SPECT/ldCT, and the corresponding Cohen's kappa values were 0.38 and 0.79. Conclusion: DMSA SPECT/ldCT is associated with higher reader confidence and interrater reliability than conventional planar DMSA scintigraphy for the assessment of post pyelonephritis renal scarring in children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据