4.3 Article

Impact of 3 Tesla MRI on interobserver agreement in clinically isolated syndrome: A MAGNIMS multicentre study

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 352-360

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458517751647

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; clinically isolated syndrome; magnetic resonance imaging; interobserver variation; multicentre study

资金

  1. Dutch MS Research Foundation (Voorschoten, The Netherlands) [14-358e]
  2. National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Compared to 1.5 T, 3 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) increases signal-to-noise ratio leading to improved image quality. However, its clinical relevance in clinically isolated syndrome suggestive of multiple sclerosis remains uncertain. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate how 3 T MRI affects the agreement between raters on lesion detection and diagnosis. Methods: We selected 30 patients and 10 healthy controls from our ongoing prospective multicentre cohort. All subjects received baseline 1.5 and 3 T brain and spinal cord MRI. Patients also received follow-up brain MRI at 3-6months. Four experienced neuroradiologists and four less-experienced raters scored the number of lesions per anatomical region and determined dissemination in space and time (McDonald 2010). Results: In controls, the mean number of lesions per rater was 0.16 at 1.5T and 0.38 at 3T (p=0.005). For patients, this was 4.18 and 4.40, respectively (p=0.657). Inter-rater agreement on involvement per anatomical region and dissemination in space and time was moderate to good for both field strengths. 3T slightly improved agreement between experienced raters, but slightly decreased agreement between less-experienced raters. Conclusion: Overall, the interobserver agreement was moderate to good. 3T appears to improve the reading for experienced readers, underlining the benefit of additional training.

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