4.5 Article

Reliability of Evaluating Achilles Tendon Vascularization Assessed With Doppler Ultrasound Advanced Dynamic Flow

期刊

JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 737-744

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jum.14414

关键词

advanced dynamic flow; intratendinous blood flow; musculoskeletal; reliability; ultrasound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reliability of quantifying intratendinous vascularization by high-sensitivity Doppler ultrasound advanced dynamic flow has not been examined yet. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of evaluating Achilles tendon vascularization by advanced dynamic flow using established scoring systems. Methods-Three investigators evaluated vascularization in 67 recordings in a test-retest design, applying the Ohberg score, a modified Ohberg score, and a counting score. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement for the Ohberg score and modified Ohberg score was analyzed by the Cohen kappa and Fleiss kappa coefficients (absolute), Kendall tau b coefficient, and Kendall coefficient of concordance (W; relative). The reliability of the counting score was analyzed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) 2.1 and 3.1, the standard error of measurement (SEM), and Bland-Altman analysis (bias and limits of agreement [LoA]). Results-Intraobserver and interobserver agreement (absolute/relative) ranged from 0.61 to 0.87/0.87 to 0.95 and 0.11 to 0.66/0.76 to 0.89 for the Ohberg score and from 0.81 to 0.87/0.92 to 0.95 and 0.64 to 0.80/0.88 to 0.93 for the modified Ohberg score, respectively. The counting score revealed an intraobserver ICC of 0.94 to 0.97 (SEM, 1.0-1.5; bias, -1; and LoA, 3-4 vessels). The interobserver ICC for the counting score ranged from 0.91 to 0.98 (SEM, 1.0-1.9; bias, 0; and LoA, 3-5 vessels). Conclusions-The modified Ohberg score and counting score showed excellent reliability and seem convenient for research and clinical practice. The Ohberg score revealed decent intraobserver but unexpected low interobserver reliability and therefore cannot be recommended.

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

4.5
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