ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2014
Reproducibility of two different methods for performing mean gray value evaluation of cyst content in endometriomas using VOCAL.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare two different methods (manual sampling of the entire cyst and semi-automated spherical sampling from the central part of the cyst) for calculating the mean gray value (MGV) from the cystic content in endometriomas using virtual organ computer-aided analysis (VOCAL).
methodsForty-one volumes from histologically confirmed endometriomas were retrieved from our database and the volumes were analyzed to compare the MGVs obtained via the two modalities. In addition, to evaluate the reproducibility in a sample of 20 volumes, two different observers calculated the MGV from cyst content using VOCAL software. For each method, each examiner analyzed the volumes twice, 3 weeks apart, for assessment of intra-observer agreement. First, manual sampling of the internal contour of all the cysts was performed, and 1 week later semi-automated 2-cm sphere sampling from the central part of the cyst was carried out. In addition, the observers recorded the time spent performing each analysis. Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility was evaluated for each method using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).
resultsThere was no difference in the mean MGV between manual sampling (22.211 ± 7.541) and the semi-automated modality of sampling (23.840 ± 8.621, p = 0.439). The correlation between manual and semi-automated sampling measurement was high (r = 0.92). According to the ICCs, there was no significant difference in interobserver reliability between manual sampling (0.931; 95 % CI, 0.824-0.973) and the semi-automated modality of sampling (0.924; 95 % CI, 0.809-0.970). Intra-observer reproducibility for both examiners was good (ICC > 0.94). Semi-automated measurements were obtained faster than those obtained by manual evaluation (p = 0.0001 for observer 1 and p = 0.083 for observer 2).
conclusionsBoth methods seem to be reliable, but the semi-automated method using the sphere should be preferred because it is a less time-consuming procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.