PURPOSE: To describe inter- and intraobserver reliability of 3D measurements of female pelvic floor structures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty reconstructed MR datasets of primiparas at 6-12 months postpartum were analyzed. Pelvic organ measurements were independently made twice by three radiologists blinded to dataset order. A "within-reader" analysis, a "between-reader" analysis, and the intraclass correlation (ICC), and standard deviation ratio (SDR) were computed for each parameter. Fifteen continuous variables and one categorical variable were measured. RESULTS: Eight continuous parameters showed excellent agreement (ICC >0.85 / SDR <0.40), five parameters showed relatively good agreement (ICC >0.70 / SDR >or=0.40, <0.60). Two parameters showed poor agreement (ICC <or=0.70 and/or SDR >or=0.60). The categorical variable showed poor agreement. CONCLUSION: Agreement was best where landmark edges were well defined, acceptable where more "reader judgment" was needed, and poor where levator defects made landmarks difficult to identify. Automated measurement algorithms are under study and may improve agreement in the future. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To describe inter- and intraobserver reliability of 3D measurements of female pelvic floor structures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty reconstructed MR datasets of primiparas at 6-12 months postpartum were analyzed. Pelvic organ measurements were independently made twice by three radiologists blinded to dataset order. A "within-reader" analysis, a "between-reader" analysis, and the intraclass correlation (ICC), and standard deviation ratio (SDR) were computed for each parameter. Fifteen continuous variables and one categorical variable were measured. RESULTS: Eight continuous parameters showed excellent agreement (ICC >0.85 / SDR <0.40), five parameters showed relatively good agreement (ICC >0.70 / SDR >or=0.40, <0.60). Two parameters showed poor agreement (ICC <or=0.70 and/or SDR >or=0.60). The categorical variable showed poor agreement. CONCLUSION: Agreement was best where landmark edges were well defined, acceptable where more "reader judgment" was needed, and poor where levator defects made landmarks difficult to identify. Automated measurement algorithms are under study and may improve agreement in the future. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: J R Fielding; H Dumanli; A G Schreyer; S Okuda; D T Gering; K H Zou; R Kikinis; F A Jolesz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: E R Norwitz; L P Hoyte; K J Jenkins; M E van der Velde; P Ratiu; D Rodriguez-Thompson; L Wilkins-Haug; C M Tempany; S J Fishman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-08-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D T Gering; A Nabavi; R Kikinis; N Hata; L J O'Donnell; W E Grimson; F A Jolesz; P M Black; W M Wells Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: A G Schreyer; J R Fielding; S K Warfield; J H Lee; K R Loughlin; H Dumanli; F A Jolesz; R Kikinis Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Victoria L Handa; Mark E Lockhart; Julia R Fielding; Catherine S Bradley; Linda Brubaker; Geoffrey W Cundiff; Wen Ye; Holly E Richter Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Giulio Aniello Santoro; Andrzej Paweł Wieczorek; S Abbas Shobeiri; Elizabeth R Mueller; Jacek Pilat; Aleksandra Stankiewicz; Giuseppe Battistella Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Deanna C E Sinex; Shaniel T Bowen; Ahmed Kashkoush; Arianna Rosemond; Danielle Carter; Prahlad G Menon; Pamela A Moalli; Steven D Abramowitch Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2021-05-16 Impact factor: 7.027
Authors: Pamela A Moalli; Shaniel T Bowen; Steven D Abramowitch; Mark E Lockhart; Michael Ham; Michael Hahn; Alison C Weidner; Holly E Richter; Charles R Rardin; Yuko M Komesu; Heidi S Harvie; Beri M Ridgeway; Donna Mazloomdoost; Amanda Shaffer; Marie G Gantz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 2.894