ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2024
Total kidney volume in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: intraobserver and interobserver agreement of two methods with MRI.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2024. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Total kidney volume (TKV) is a parameter used in both treatment decision and follow-up in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate intra- and interobserver agreement of the ellipsoid formula (EF) and manual boundary tracing method (MBTM) used in TKV measurement of ADPKD patients across different levels of experience radiologists. Additionally, the study aimed to evaluate the correlation between the EF and MBTM, which is considered the gold standard for TKV. Materials and methods: A retrospective evaluation was conducted on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from 55 ADPKD patients who underwent abdominal MRI between January 2017 and November 2021 to evaluate TKV. TKV measurements were performed by three independent observers (observer 1, an abdominal imaging radiologist with 5 years of experience; observer 2, a fourth-year radiology resident; observer 3, a second-year radiology resident).To assess intraobserver variability, all observers repeated the measurements at two-week intervals. The ICC was used to assess both intraobserver and interobserver variability. A comparison of the two methods was performed by linear regression for all three observers. Results: The ICC (95% CI) indicated excellent agreement between the observers for both methods (among all observers, p < 0.001). Furthermore, excellent intraobserver agreement was found between all observer measurements either EF or MBTM based on ICC (95% CI) (p < 0.001). The results of the linear regression analysis demonstrated high correlations between the two methods in all three observers (r = 0.992, p < 0.001 for the first observer; r = 0.975, p < 0.001 for the second observer; r = 0.989, p < 0.001 for the third observer). Conclusion: Both the EF and MBTM methods used for the measurement of TKV provided excellent intra- and interobserver reproducibility. The EF is as accurate and precise as the MBTM. It may therefore be preferred in radiology departments with heavy workload, as it is a reliable method for rapid and easy assessment, independent of experience.
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.