OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess interobserver uncertainties in power Doppler (PD) examination of the fingers of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), by separating the source of the discrepancy into (1) acquisition of the images and (2) criteria for assessment of the images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients who had been diagnosed with RA were enrolled in this study. Ultrasound examinations were performed by one inexperienced and two experienced sonographers. Interobserver variation was measured using a conventional semiquantitative image grading scale. Interobserver variation of the quantitative PD (QPD) index (the summation of the colored pixels in a region of interest) was also assessed. RESULTS: The agreement was higher between the two experienced sonographers (kappa value of 0.8) than between experienced and inexperienced sonographers (kappa value, 0.6-0.7) in the semiquantitative image grading scale. Results suggest that the difference in the assessment on the image grading scale was due more to the difference in the acquisition of the images than to variations in the grading criteria between sonographers. An excellent relationship was noted between the image grading scale and the QPD index for Doppler signal with a Spearman's coefficient of rank correlation of 0.83 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver discrepancies in the image grading and QPD index methods were due more to the difference in the acquisition of the image than to the grading criteria used. The QPD index seems to be as reliable as the image grading scale with reasonable interobserver agreement between experienced sonographers.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess interobserver uncertainties in power Doppler (PD) examination of the fingers of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), by separating the source of the discrepancy into (1) acquisition of the images and (2) criteria for assessment of the images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients who had been diagnosed with RA were enrolled in this study. Ultrasound examinations were performed by one inexperienced and two experienced sonographers. Interobserver variation was measured using a conventional semiquantitative image grading scale. Interobserver variation of the quantitative PD (QPD) index (the summation of the colored pixels in a region of interest) was also assessed. RESULTS: The agreement was higher between the two experienced sonographers (kappa value of 0.8) than between experienced and inexperienced sonographers (kappa value, 0.6-0.7) in the semiquantitative image grading scale. Results suggest that the difference in the assessment on the image grading scale was due more to the difference in the acquisition of the images than to variations in the grading criteria between sonographers. An excellent relationship was noted between the image grading scale and the QPD index for Doppler signal with a Spearman's coefficient of rank correlation of 0.83 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver discrepancies in the image grading and QPD index methods were due more to the difference in the acquisition of the image than to the grading criteria used. The QPD index seems to be as reliable as the image grading scale with reasonable interobserver agreement between experienced sonographers.
Authors: J M Koski; S Saarakkala; M Helle; U Hakulinen; J O Heikkinen; H Hermunen; P Balint; G A Bruyn; E Filippucci; W Grassi; A Iagnocco; R Luosujärvi; B Manger; E De Miguel; E Naredo; A K Scheel; W A Schmidt; I Soini; M Szkudlarek; L Terslev; J Uson; S Vuoristo; H R Ziswiler Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2006-05-25 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: E Qvistgaard; H Røgind; S Torp-Pedersen; L Terslev; B Danneskiold-Samsøe; H Bliddal Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: E Naredo; I Möller; C Moragues; J J de Agustín; A K Scheel; W Grassi; E de Miguel; M Backhaus; P Balint; G A W Bruyn; M A D'Agostino; E Filippucci; A Iagnocco; D Kane; J M Koski; L Mayordomo; W A Schmidt; W A A Swen; M Szkudlarek; L Terslev; S Torp-Pedersen; J Uson; R J Wakefield; C Werner Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2005-06-07 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: P C Taylor; A Steuer; J Gruber; D O Cosgrove; M J K Blomley; P A Marsters; C L Wagner; C McClinton; R N Maini Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2004-04
Authors: L Terslev; S Torp-Pedersen; E Qvistgaard; H Kristoffersen; H Røgind; B Danneskiold-Samsøe; H Bliddal Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Matthew W Seymour; Stephen Kelly; Chan R Beals; Marie-Pierre Malice; James A Bolognese; Bernard J Dardzinski; Amy S Cheng; Corinne E Cummings; Steven S Smugar; Catherine McClinton; Amy Fox; William M Dooley; Constantino Pitzalis; Peter C Taylor Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 5.156