A standardized measurement technique may improve the reliability of measurements of endometrial thickness and volume
Objective To investigate whether standardization of the multiplanar view (SMV) when evaluating the uterus using three‐dimensional ultrasonography (3D‐US) improves intra‐ and interobserver reliability and agreement with regard to endometrial measurement. Methods Two‐dimensional (2D) and 3D‐US was use...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology 2011-07, Vol.38 (1), p.107-115 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 115 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 107 |
| container_title | Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology |
| container_volume | 38 |
| creator | Martins, W. P. Raine‐Fenning, N. J. Leite, S. P. Ferriani, R. A. Nastri, C. O. |
| description | Objective
To investigate whether standardization of the multiplanar view (SMV) when evaluating the uterus using three‐dimensional ultrasonography (3D‐US) improves intra‐ and interobserver reliability and agreement with regard to endometrial measurement.
Methods
Two‐dimensional (2D) and 3D‐US was used to measure endometrial thickness by two observers in 30 women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. Endometrial volume was measured with Virtual Organ Computer‐aided AnaLysis (VOCAL™) in the longitudinal (A) and coronal (C) planes using an unmodified multiplanar view (UMV) and a standardized multiplanar view (SMV). Measurement reliability was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and agreement was examined using Bland–Altman plots with limits of agreement (LoA). The ease of outlining the endometrial–myometrial interface was compared between the A‐ and C‐planes using subjective assessment.
Results
Endometrial volume measurements using the SMV and A‐plane were more reliable (intra‐ and interobserver ICCs, 0.979 and 0.975, respectively) than were measurements of endometrial thickness using 2D‐US (intra‐ and interobserver ICCs, 0.742 and 0.702, respectively) or 3D‐US (intra‐ and interobserver ICCs, 0.890 and 0.784, respectively). The LoAs were narrower for SMV than for UMV. Reliability and agreement were not much different between the A‐ and C‐planes. However the observers agreed that delineating the endometrial–myometrial interface using the A‐plane was easier (first and second observer, 50.0 and 46.7%, respectively) or ‘comparable’ (50 and 53.3%, respectively), but never more difficult than using the C‐plane.
Conclusions
Endometrial volume measurements are more reliable than endometrial thickness measurements and are best performed using SMV and the A‐plane. Copyright © 2011 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/uog.9016 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_874297666</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3278913031</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4456-4dd3e168f2ab9c9442259789c251a77f1a50a89622f22da9b4e536117fc27a4a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90V1LHDEUBuBQlLraQn-BBETszWiSycfmUkRtQfBGr4ezmTM1mszYZGZl--ubrdsqQr0KgSfvyeEl5Atnx5wxcTINP44t4_oDmXGpbcUMU1tkxqxmldFW7JDdnO8ZY1rW-iPZEUUpzeyMjKc0j9C3kFr_C1saEfKUMGI_0hHdXe9_TkgjrKiPj2lYIh3vkCYMHhY--HFFh-71o7y-Y98OEcfkIRTu3UOPOdMyhS6HMEX8RLY7CBk_b849cntxfnP2rbq6vvx-dnpVOSmVrmTb1sj1vBOwsM5KKYSyZm6dUByM6TgoBnOrheiEaMEuJKpac246JwxIqPfI0XNu-XlZI49N9NlhCNDjMOVmbqSwRmtd5Nd3JWfcWMO5MIUevKH3w5T6skfDFTdSGcXkS6BLQ84Ju-Yx-QhpVaKadWdN6axZd1bo_iZwWkRs_8G_JRVwuAGQHYQuQe98fnGyZkbxurjq2T35gKv_Dmxury__DP4NJGatTg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1517457504</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A standardized measurement technique may improve the reliability of measurements of endometrial thickness and volume</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><creator>Martins, W. P. ; Raine‐Fenning, N. J. ; Leite, S. P. ; Ferriani, R. A. ; Nastri, C. O.</creator><creatorcontrib>Martins, W. P. ; Raine‐Fenning, N. J. ; Leite, S. P. ; Ferriani, R. A. ; Nastri, C. O.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
To investigate whether standardization of the multiplanar view (SMV) when evaluating the uterus using three‐dimensional ultrasonography (3D‐US) improves intra‐ and interobserver reliability and agreement with regard to endometrial measurement.
Methods
Two‐dimensional (2D) and 3D‐US was used to measure endometrial thickness by two observers in 30 women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. Endometrial volume was measured with Virtual Organ Computer‐aided AnaLysis (VOCAL™) in the longitudinal (A) and coronal (C) planes using an unmodified multiplanar view (UMV) and a standardized multiplanar view (SMV). Measurement reliability was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and agreement was examined using Bland–Altman plots with limits of agreement (LoA). The ease of outlining the endometrial–myometrial interface was compared between the A‐ and C‐planes using subjective assessment.
Results
Endometrial volume measurements using the SMV and A‐plane were more reliable (intra‐ and interobserver ICCs, 0.979 and 0.975, respectively) than were measurements of endometrial thickness using 2D‐US (intra‐ and interobserver ICCs, 0.742 and 0.702, respectively) or 3D‐US (intra‐ and interobserver ICCs, 0.890 and 0.784, respectively). The LoAs were narrower for SMV than for UMV. Reliability and agreement were not much different between the A‐ and C‐planes. However the observers agreed that delineating the endometrial–myometrial interface using the A‐plane was easier (first and second observer, 50.0 and 46.7%, respectively) or ‘comparable’ (50 and 53.3%, respectively), but never more difficult than using the C‐plane.
Conclusions
Endometrial volume measurements are more reliable than endometrial thickness measurements and are best performed using SMV and the A‐plane. Copyright © 2011 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-7692</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1469-0705</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-0705</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/uog.9016</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21465609</identifier><identifier>CODEN: UOGYFJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Endometrium ; Endometrium - diagnostic imaging ; Endometrium - pathology ; Female ; Gynecology ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; imaging ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - classification ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods ; Medical sciences ; Observer Variation ; Obstetrics ; Reproducibility of Results ; Reproduction ; reproductive medicine ; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted ; Standardization ; three‐dimensional ; Ultrasonography ; Ultrasound ; Uterus ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology, 2011-07, Vol.38 (1), p.107-115</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2011 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4456-4dd3e168f2ab9c9442259789c251a77f1a50a89622f22da9b4e536117fc27a4a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4456-4dd3e168f2ab9c9442259789c251a77f1a50a89622f22da9b4e536117fc27a4a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fuog.9016$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fuog.9016$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,1433,27924,27925,45574,45575,46409,46833</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=24307513$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21465609$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Martins, W. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raine‐Fenning, N. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leite, S. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferriani, R. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nastri, C. O.</creatorcontrib><title>A standardized measurement technique may improve the reliability of measurements of endometrial thickness and volume</title><title>Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology</title><addtitle>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Objective
To investigate whether standardization of the multiplanar view (SMV) when evaluating the uterus using three‐dimensional ultrasonography (3D‐US) improves intra‐ and interobserver reliability and agreement with regard to endometrial measurement.
Methods
Two‐dimensional (2D) and 3D‐US was used to measure endometrial thickness by two observers in 30 women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. Endometrial volume was measured with Virtual Organ Computer‐aided AnaLysis (VOCAL™) in the longitudinal (A) and coronal (C) planes using an unmodified multiplanar view (UMV) and a standardized multiplanar view (SMV). Measurement reliability was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and agreement was examined using Bland–Altman plots with limits of agreement (LoA). The ease of outlining the endometrial–myometrial interface was compared between the A‐ and C‐planes using subjective assessment.
Results
Endometrial volume measurements using the SMV and A‐plane were more reliable (intra‐ and interobserver ICCs, 0.979 and 0.975, respectively) than were measurements of endometrial thickness using 2D‐US (intra‐ and interobserver ICCs, 0.742 and 0.702, respectively) or 3D‐US (intra‐ and interobserver ICCs, 0.890 and 0.784, respectively). The LoAs were narrower for SMV than for UMV. Reliability and agreement were not much different between the A‐ and C‐planes. However the observers agreed that delineating the endometrial–myometrial interface using the A‐plane was easier (first and second observer, 50.0 and 46.7%, respectively) or ‘comparable’ (50 and 53.3%, respectively), but never more difficult than using the C‐plane.
Conclusions
Endometrial volume measurements are more reliable than endometrial thickness measurements and are best performed using SMV and the A‐plane. Copyright © 2011 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Endometrium</subject><subject>Endometrium - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Endometrium - pathology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>imaging</subject><subject>Imaging, Three-Dimensional - classification</subject><subject>Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Obstetrics</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Reproduction</subject><subject>reproductive medicine</subject><subject>Reproductive Techniques, Assisted</subject><subject>Standardization</subject><subject>three‐dimensional</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Uterus</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0960-7692</issn><issn>1469-0705</issn><issn>1469-0705</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp90V1LHDEUBuBQlLraQn-BBETszWiSycfmUkRtQfBGr4ezmTM1mszYZGZl--ubrdsqQr0KgSfvyeEl5Atnx5wxcTINP44t4_oDmXGpbcUMU1tkxqxmldFW7JDdnO8ZY1rW-iPZEUUpzeyMjKc0j9C3kFr_C1saEfKUMGI_0hHdXe9_TkgjrKiPj2lYIh3vkCYMHhY--HFFh-71o7y-Y98OEcfkIRTu3UOPOdMyhS6HMEX8RLY7CBk_b849cntxfnP2rbq6vvx-dnpVOSmVrmTb1sj1vBOwsM5KKYSyZm6dUByM6TgoBnOrheiEaMEuJKpac246JwxIqPfI0XNu-XlZI49N9NlhCNDjMOVmbqSwRmtd5Nd3JWfcWMO5MIUevKH3w5T6skfDFTdSGcXkS6BLQ84Ju-Yx-QhpVaKadWdN6axZd1bo_iZwWkRs_8G_JRVwuAGQHYQuQe98fnGyZkbxurjq2T35gKv_Dmxury__DP4NJGatTg</recordid><startdate>201107</startdate><enddate>201107</enddate><creator>Martins, W. P.</creator><creator>Raine‐Fenning, N. J.</creator><creator>Leite, S. P.</creator><creator>Ferriani, R. A.</creator><creator>Nastri, C. O.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</general><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201107</creationdate><title>A standardized measurement technique may improve the reliability of measurements of endometrial thickness and volume</title><author>Martins, W. P. ; Raine‐Fenning, N. J. ; Leite, S. P. ; Ferriani, R. A. ; Nastri, C. O.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4456-4dd3e168f2ab9c9442259789c251a77f1a50a89622f22da9b4e536117fc27a4a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Endometrium</topic><topic>Endometrium - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Endometrium - pathology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>imaging</topic><topic>Imaging, Three-Dimensional - classification</topic><topic>Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Obstetrics</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Reproduction</topic><topic>reproductive medicine</topic><topic>Reproductive Techniques, Assisted</topic><topic>Standardization</topic><topic>three‐dimensional</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Uterus</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Martins, W. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raine‐Fenning, N. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leite, S. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferriani, R. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nastri, C. O.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Martins, W. P.</au><au>Raine‐Fenning, N. J.</au><au>Leite, S. P.</au><au>Ferriani, R. A.</au><au>Nastri, C. O.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A standardized measurement technique may improve the reliability of measurements of endometrial thickness and volume</atitle><jtitle>Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2011-07</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>107</spage><epage>115</epage><pages>107-115</pages><issn>0960-7692</issn><issn>1469-0705</issn><eissn>1469-0705</eissn><coden>UOGYFJ</coden><abstract>Objective
To investigate whether standardization of the multiplanar view (SMV) when evaluating the uterus using three‐dimensional ultrasonography (3D‐US) improves intra‐ and interobserver reliability and agreement with regard to endometrial measurement.
Methods
Two‐dimensional (2D) and 3D‐US was used to measure endometrial thickness by two observers in 30 women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. Endometrial volume was measured with Virtual Organ Computer‐aided AnaLysis (VOCAL™) in the longitudinal (A) and coronal (C) planes using an unmodified multiplanar view (UMV) and a standardized multiplanar view (SMV). Measurement reliability was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and agreement was examined using Bland–Altman plots with limits of agreement (LoA). The ease of outlining the endometrial–myometrial interface was compared between the A‐ and C‐planes using subjective assessment.
Results
Endometrial volume measurements using the SMV and A‐plane were more reliable (intra‐ and interobserver ICCs, 0.979 and 0.975, respectively) than were measurements of endometrial thickness using 2D‐US (intra‐ and interobserver ICCs, 0.742 and 0.702, respectively) or 3D‐US (intra‐ and interobserver ICCs, 0.890 and 0.784, respectively). The LoAs were narrower for SMV than for UMV. Reliability and agreement were not much different between the A‐ and C‐planes. However the observers agreed that delineating the endometrial–myometrial interface using the A‐plane was easier (first and second observer, 50.0 and 46.7%, respectively) or ‘comparable’ (50 and 53.3%, respectively), but never more difficult than using the C‐plane.
Conclusions
Endometrial volume measurements are more reliable than endometrial thickness measurements and are best performed using SMV and the A‐plane. Copyright © 2011 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</pub><pmid>21465609</pmid><doi>10.1002/uog.9016</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0960-7692 |
| ispartof | Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology, 2011-07, Vol.38 (1), p.107-115 |
| issn | 0960-7692 1469-0705 1469-0705 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_874297666 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection) |
| subjects | Adult Biological and medical sciences Endometrium Endometrium - diagnostic imaging Endometrium - pathology Female Gynecology Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans imaging Imaging, Three-Dimensional - classification Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods Medical sciences Observer Variation Obstetrics Reproducibility of Results Reproduction reproductive medicine Reproductive Techniques, Assisted Standardization three‐dimensional Ultrasonography Ultrasound Uterus Young Adult |
| title | A standardized measurement technique may improve the reliability of measurements of endometrial thickness and volume |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T19%3A23%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20standardized%20measurement%20technique%20may%20improve%20the%20reliability%20of%20measurements%20of%20endometrial%20thickness%20and%20volume&rft.jtitle=Ultrasound%20in%20obstetrics%20&%20gynecology&rft.au=Martins,%20W.%20P.&rft.date=2011-07&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=107&rft.epage=115&rft.pages=107-115&rft.issn=0960-7692&rft.eissn=1469-0705&rft.coden=UOGYFJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/uog.9016&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3278913031%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1517457504&rft_id=info:pmid/21465609&rfr_iscdi=true |