Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33191265›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Retrospective comparison of approaches to evaluating inter-observer variability in CT tumour measurements in an academic health centre.

MinJae Woo, Moonseong Heo, A Michael Devane, Steven C Lowe, Ronald W Gimbel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Deep learning for semi-automated unidirectional measurement of lung tumor size in CT.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2021
    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.

MinJae WooPublic Health Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.
Moonseong HeoPublic Health Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.
A Michael DevaneRadiology, Prisma Health Upstate, Greenville, South Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2497-8882
Steven C LoweRadiology, Prisma Health Upstate, Greenville, South Carolina, USA.
Ronald W GimbelPublic Health Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA rgimbel@clemson.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8185-4013

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA growing number of research studies have reported inter-observer variability in sizes of tumours measured from CT scans. It remains unclear whether the conventional statistical measures correctly evaluate the CT measurement consistency for optimal treatment management and decision-making. We compared and evaluated the existing measures for evaluating inter-observer variability in CT measurement of cancer lesions.

methods13 board-certified radiologists repeatedly reviewed 10 CT image sets of lung lesions and hepatic metastases selected through a randomisation process. A total of 130 measurements under RECIST 1.1 (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) guidelines were collected for the demonstration. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman plotting and outlier counting methods were selected for the comparison. The each selected measure was used to evaluate three cases with observed, increased and decreased inter-observer variability.

resultsThe ICC score yielded a weak detection when evaluating different levels of the inter-observer variability among radiologists (increased: 0.912; observed: 0.962; decreased: 0.990). The outlier counting method using Bland-Altman plotting with 2SD yielded no detection at all with its number of outliers unchanging regardless of level of inter-observer variability. Outlier counting based on domain knowledge was more sensitised to different levels of the inter-observer variability compared with the conventional measures (increased: 0.756; observed: 0.923; improved: 1.000). Visualisation of pairwise Bland-Altman bias was also sensitised to the inter-observer variability with its pattern rapidly changing in response to different levels of the inter-observer variability.

conclusionsConventional measures may yield weak or no detection when evaluating different levels of the inter-observer variability among radiologists. We observed that the outlier counting based on domain knowledge was sensitised to the inter-observer variability in CT measurement of cancer lesions. Our study demonstrated that, under certain circumstances, the use of standard statistical correlation coefficients may be misleading and result in a sense of false security related to the consistency of measurement for optimal treatment management and decision-making.

Indexed as

Liver NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studiesadult oncologycomputed tomographyprotocols & guidelinesquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID33191265
PMCPMC7668356

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.