Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29024119›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2018

Automatic segmentation of puborectalis muscle on three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound.

F van den Noort, A T M Grob, C H Slump, C H van der Vaart, M van Stralen

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Deep learning enables automatic quantitative assessment of puborectalis muscle and urogenital hiatus in plane of minimal hiatal dimensions.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

F van den NoortMIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9998-1229
A T M GrobMIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5385-5841
C H SlumpMIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
C H van der VaartDepartment of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M van StralenImaging Division, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe introduction of three-dimensional (3D) analysis of the puborectalis muscle (PRM) for diagnostic purposes into daily practice is hindered by the need for appropriate training of observers. Automatic segmentation of the PRM on 3D transperineal ultrasound may aid its integration into clinical practice. The aims of this study were to present and assess a protocol for manual 3D segmentation of the PRM on 3D transperineal ultrasound, and to use this for training of automatic 3D segmentation method of the PRM.

methodsThe data used in this study were derived from 3D transperineal ultrasound sequences of the pelvic floor acquired at 12 weeks' gestation from nulliparous women with a singleton pregnancy. A manual 3D segmentation protocol was developed for the PRM based on a validated two-dimensional segmentation protocol. For automatic segmentation, active appearance models of the PRM were developed, trained using manual segmentation data from 50 women. The performances of both manual and automatic segmentation were analyzed by measuring the overlap and distance between the segmentations. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and their 95% CIs were determined for mean echogenicity and volume of the puborectalis muscle, in order to assess inter- and intraobserver reliabilities of the manual method using data from 20 women, as well as to compare the manual and automatic methods.

resultsInterobserver reliabilities for mean echogenicity and volume were very good for manual segmentation (ICCs 0.987 and 0.910, respectively), as were intraobserver reliabilities (ICCs 0.991 and 0.877, respectively). ICCs for mean echogenicity and volume were very good and good, respectively, for the comparison of manual vs automatic segmentation (0.968 and 0.626, respectively). The overlap and distance results for manual segmentation were as expected, showing an average mismatch of only 2-3 pixels and reasonable overlap. Based on overlap and distance, five mismatches were detected for automatic segmentation, resulting in an automatic segmentation success rate of 90%.

conclusionsThis study presents a reliable manual segmentation protocol and automatic 3D segmentation method for the PRM, which will facilitate future investigation of the PRM, allowing for the reliable measurement of potentially clinically valuable parameters such as mean echogenicity. © 2017 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalUltrasonographyAdultDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansMuscle ContractionObstetricsPelvic FloorPostpartum PeriodPregnancyReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsVideo Recording3D segmentationactive appearance modelpuborectalis muscleultrasound

Identifiers

PMID29024119
PMCPMC6055737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.