4.3 Article

Measurement error in CT assessment of appendix diameter

期刊

PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY
卷 46, 期 13, 页码 1831-1836

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00247-016-3699-3

关键词

Appendix; Appendicitis; Children; Computed tomography; Measurement

资金

  1. Siemens Healthcare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Appendiceal diameter continues to be cited as an important criterion for diagnosis of appendicitis by computed tomography (CT). To assess sources of error and variability in appendiceal diameter measurements by CT. In this institutional review board-approved review of imaging and medical records, we reviewed CTs performed in children < 18 years of age between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2010. Appendiceal diameter was measured in the axial and coronal planes by two reviewers (R1, R2). One year later, 10% of cases were remeasured. For patients who had multiple CTs, serial measurements were made to assess within patient variability. Measurement differences between planes, within and between reviewers, within patients and between CT and pathological measurements were assessed using correlation coefficients and paired t-tests. Six hundred thirty-one CTs performed in 519 patients (mean age: 10.9 +/- 4.9 years, 50.8% female) were reviewed. Axial and coronal measurements were strongly correlated (r = 0.92-0.94, P < 0.0001) with coronal plane measurements significantly larger (P < 0.0001). Measurements were strongly correlated between reviewers (r = 0.89-0.9, P < 0.0001) but differed significantly in both planes (axial: +0.2 mm, P=0.003; coronal: +0.1 mm, P=0.007). Repeat measurements were significantly different for one reviewer only in the axial plane (0.3 mm difference, P < 0.05). Within patients imaged multiple times, measured appendix diameters differed significantly in the axial plane for both reviewers (R1: 0.5 mm, P = 0.031; R2: 0.7 mm, P = 0.022). Multiple potential sources of measurement error raise concern about the use of rigid diameter cutoffs for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis by CT.

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

4.3
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