ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2024
Comparison of the Size Measurement of Gallbladder Polyps by Three Different Radiologists in Abdominal Ultrasonography.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Advancements in Image-Based Analyses for Morphology and Staging of Colon Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.BioMed research international · 2025Pooled it
- Ultrasound of the Gallbladder-An Update on Measurements, Reference Values, Variants and Frequent Pathologies: A Scoping Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
backgroundThere is little information regarding the size measurement differences in gallbladder (GB) polyps performed by different radiologists on abdominal ultrasonography (US).
aimTo reveal the differences in GB polyp size measurements performed by different radiologists on abdominal US.
methodsFrom June to September 2022, the maximum diameter of 228 GB polyps was measured twice on abdominal US by one of three radiologists (a third-year radiology resident [reader A], a radiologist with 7 years of experience in abdominal US [reader B], and an abdominal radiologist with 8 years of experience in abdominal US [reader C]). Intra-reader agreements for polyp size measurements were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A Bland-Altman plot was used to visualize the differences between the first and second size measurements in each reader.
resultsReader A, reader B, and reader C evaluated 65, 77, and 86 polyps, respectively. The mean size of measured 228 GB polyps was 5.0 ± 1.9 mm. Except for the case where reader A showed moderate intra-reader agreement (0.726) for polyps with size ≤ 5 mm, all readers showed an overall high intra-reader reliability (reader A, ICC = 0.859; reader B, ICC = 0.947, reader C, ICC = 0.948), indicative of good and excellent intra-reader agreements. The 95% limit of agreement of reader A, B, and C was 1.9 mm of the mean in all three readers.
conclusionsGB polyp size measurement on abdominal US showed good or excellent intra-reader agreements. However, size changes of approximately less than 1.9 mm should be interpreted carefully because these may be within the measurement error.
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.