ArticleBMC medical imaging2024
Assessing the inter-observer and intra-observer reliability of radiographic measurements for size-specific dose estimates.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Comparison of Radiographic Stress Views in Detecting Scapholunate Ligament Injuries: A Cadaveric Model Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the tubular penetration of two different types of nanoparticle root canal sealers over apically separated files: a scanning electron microscopic study (in vitro study).BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCalculating size-specific dose estimates (SSDEs) requires measurement of the patient's anteroposterior (AP) and lateral thickness based on computed tomography (CT) images. However, these measurements can be subject to variation due to inter-observer and intra-observer differences. This study aimed to investigate the impact of these variations on the accuracy of the calculated SSDE.
methodsFour radiographers with 1-10 years of experience were invited to measure the AP and lateral thickness on 30 chest, abdomen, and pelvic CT images. The images were sourced from an internet-based database and anonymized for analysis. The observers were trained to perform the measurements using MicroDicom software and asked to repeat the measurements 1 week later. The study was approved by the institutional review board at Taibah University, and written informed consent was obtained from the observers. Statistical analyses were performed using Python libraries Pingouin (version 0.5.3), Seaborn (version 0.12.2), and Matplotlib (version 3.7.1).
resultsThe study revealed excellent inter-observer agreement for the calculated effective diameter and AP thickness measurements, with Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) values of 0.95 and 0.96, respectively. The agreement for lateral thickness measurements was lower, with an ICC value of 0.89. The second round of measurements yielded nearly the same levels of inter-observer agreement, with ICC values of 0.97 for the effective diameter, 1.0 for AP thickness, and 0.88 for lateral thickness. When the consistency of the observer was examined, excellent consistency was found for the calculated effective diameter, with ICC values ranging from 0.91 to 1.0 for all observers. This was observed despite the lower consistency in the lateral thickness measurements, which had ICC values ranging from 0.78 to 1.0.
conclusionsThe study's findings suggest that the measurements required for calculating SSDEs are robust to inter-observer and intra-observer differences. This is important for the clinical use of SSDEs to set diagnostic reference levels for CT scans.
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.