ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2024
Reproducibility of rCBV in glioblastomas using T2*-weighted perfusion MRI: an evaluation of sampling, normalization, and experience.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe reproducibility of relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) measurements among readers with different levels of experience is a concern. This study aimed to investigate the inter-reader reproducibility of rCBV measurement of glioblastomas using the hotspot method in dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (DSC-MRI) with various strategies.
methodsIn this institutional review board-approved single-center study, 30 patients with glioblastoma were retrospectively evaluated with DSC-MRI at a 3.0 Tesla scanner. Three groups of reviewers, including neuroradiologists, general radiologists, and radiology residents, calculated the rCBV based on the number of regions of interest (ROIs) and reference areas. For statistical analysis of feature reproducibility, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used. Analyses were made among individuals, reader groups, reader-group pooling, and a population that contained all of them.
resultsFor individuals, the highest inter-reader reproducibility was observed between neuroradiologists [ICC: 0.527; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.21-0.74] and between residents (ICC: 0.513; 95% CI: 0.20-0.73). There was poor reproducibility in the analyses of individuals with different levels of experience (ICC range: 0.296-0.335) and in reader-wise and group-wise pooling (ICC range: 0.296-0.335 and 0.397-0.427, respectively). However, an increase in ICC values was observed when five ROIs were used. In an analysis of all strategies, the ICC for the centrum semiovale was significantly higher than that for contralateral white matter (
conclusionThe inter-reader reproducibility of rCBV measurement was poor to moderate regardless of whether it was calculated by neuroradiologists, general radiologists, or residents, which may indicate the need for automated methods. Choosing five ROIs and using the centrum semiovale as a reference area may increase reliability for all users.
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.