BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Semiautomated methods for ICA stenosis measurements have the potential to reduce interobserver variability and to speed up its analysis. In this study, we estimate the precision and accuracy of a semiautomated measurement for carotid artery stenosis degree and identify and explain differences compared with the manual method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study involving 90 patients, 2 observers determined the stenosis degree twice, with both the semiautomated and the manual method. Intra- and interobserver correlations were calculated for both methods. The accuracy was estimated by comparing average semiautomated with manual measurements. The semiautomated stenosis calculations were performed using either the minimal or maximal intersection at the reference site. Individual cases with large differences in measurement were retrospectively inspected by 3 observers. RESULTS: Intra- (R = 0.93, 0.96) and interobserver (R = 0.98) correlations for the semiautomated method were excellent and exceeded the manual performance correlations (R = 0.87, 0.86). The semiautomated measurements correlated well with the manual measurements (R = 0.87), with high specificity of 96% and lower sensitivity of 63%. Large differences were caused by misinterpretations of the semiautomated method associated with calcified plaques, resulting in overestimations of the minimal diameter, underestimation of stenosis degree, and incorrect centerlines. The effect of using the minimal diameter at the reference position resulted in a small, but significant, underestimation of the stenosis degree by the semiautomated method. CONCLUSIONS: The semiautomated method showed an excellent reproducibility and good correlation with manual measurements with a high specificity and lower sensitivity for detecting a significant stenosis. Erroneous semiautomatic stenosis measurements were associated with the presence of calcium.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Semiautomated methods for ICA stenosis measurements have the potential to reduce interobserver variability and to speed up its analysis. In this study, we estimate the precision and accuracy of a semiautomated measurement for carotid artery stenosis degree and identify and explain differences compared with the manual method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study involving 90 patients, 2 observers determined the stenosis degree twice, with both the semiautomated and the manual method. Intra- and interobserver correlations were calculated for both methods. The accuracy was estimated by comparing average semiautomated with manual measurements. The semiautomated stenosis calculations were performed using either the minimal or maximal intersection at the reference site. Individual cases with large differences in measurement were retrospectively inspected by 3 observers. RESULTS: Intra- (R = 0.93, 0.96) and interobserver (R = 0.98) correlations for the semiautomated method were excellent and exceeded the manual performance correlations (R = 0.87, 0.86). The semiautomated measurements correlated well with the manual measurements (R = 0.87), with high specificity of 96% and lower sensitivity of 63%. Large differences were caused by misinterpretations of the semiautomated method associated with calcified plaques, resulting in overestimations of the minimal diameter, underestimation of stenosis degree, and incorrect centerlines. The effect of using the minimal diameter at the reference position resulted in a small, but significant, underestimation of the stenosis degree by the semiautomated method. CONCLUSIONS: The semiautomated method showed an excellent reproducibility and good correlation with manual measurements with a high specificity and lower sensitivity for detecting a significant stenosis. Erroneous semiautomatic stenosis measurements were associated with the presence of calcium.
Authors: Paul J Nederkoorn; Otto E H Elgersma; Willem P Th M Mali; Bert C Eikelboom; L Jaap Kappelle; Yolanda van der Graaf Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Thomas Hackländer; Holger Wegner; Steffen Hoppe; Anne Danckworth; Udo Kempkes; Marius Fischer; Heinrich Mertens; James H Caldwell Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2006 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Max Wintermark; Christine Glastonbury; Elizabeth Tong; Benison C Lau; Sarah Schaeffer; Jeffrey D Chien; Peter J Haar; David Saloner Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2008-01-29 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: H J Barnett; D W Taylor; M Eliasziw; A J Fox; G G Ferguson; R B Haynes; R N Rankin; G P Clagett; V C Hachinski; D L Sackett; K E Thorpe; H E Meldrum; J D Spence Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-11-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E M A Wiegerinck; H A Marquering; N Y Oldenburger; M A Elattar; R N Planken; B A J M De Mol; J J Piek; J Baan Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Chengcheng Zhu; Andrew J Patterson; Owen M Thomas; Umar Sadat; Martin J Graves; Jonathan H Gillard Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-11-08 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: G Gascou; K Lobotesis; P Machi; I Maldonado; J F Vendrell; C Riquelme; O Eker; G Mercier; I Mourand; C Arquizan; A Bonafé; V Costalat Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ali Kord Valeshabad; Justin Wanek; Faisal Mukarram; Ruth Zelkha; Fernando D Testai; Mahnaz Shahidi Journal: Microvasc Res Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 3.514
Authors: J Borst; H A Marquering; M Kappelhof; T Zadi; A C van Dijk; P J Nederkoorn; R van den Berg; A van der Lugt; C B L M Majoie Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Martin J C Van Gemert; Marianne Vlaming; Bülent Köseoğlu; Cornelis M A Bruijninckx; Ton G Van Leeuwen; Martino H A Neumann; Pieter J J Sauer Journal: Am J Case Rep Date: 2020-10-14