Jonas Widell1, Mats Lidén1. 1. Department of Radiology, Örebro University Hospital, Region Örebro County, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify the interobserver variability among the most frequently encountered parenchymal patterns in High Resolution CT (HRCT) and to compare the interobserver variability in the application of the 2011 and 2018 usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) criteria according to the joint guidelines from international thoracic and respiratory societies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two observers independently evaluated 126 HRCT, with examples of most common parenchymal patterns, and noted the presence of each pattern. The readers also noted whether the findings met the 2011 criteria for UIP. In a second reading, the same readers noted whether the HRCT met the UIP criteria according to the 2018 UIP update. RESULTS: The kappa values for interobserver variability for the different patterns ranged from 0.28 (intralobular lines) to 0.85 (tree-in-bud nodules). The kappa value for UIP pattern was similar for 2011 and 2018 criteria, 0.58 and 0.69, respectively. Compared to the 2011 UIP criteria, there was no statistically significant difference in the number of HRCT classified as UIP using the 2018 criteria. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial variation in interobserver agreement between the different parenchymal patterns, which suggests that some patterns a more easily identified than others. There is also a considerable reader variation in the assessment of UIP applying the 2011 UIP criteria as well as applying the 2018 UIP update.
PURPOSE: To quantify the interobserver variability among the most frequently encountered parenchymal patterns in High Resolution CT (HRCT) and to compare the interobserver variability in the application of the 2011 and 2018 usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) criteria according to the joint guidelines from international thoracic and respiratory societies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two observers independently evaluated 126 HRCT, with examples of most common parenchymal patterns, and noted the presence of each pattern. The readers also noted whether the findings met the 2011 criteria for UIP. In a second reading, the same readers noted whether the HRCT met the UIP criteria according to the 2018 UIP update. RESULTS: The kappa values for interobserver variability for the different patterns ranged from 0.28 (intralobular lines) to 0.85 (tree-in-bud nodules). The kappa value for UIP pattern was similar for 2011 and 2018 criteria, 0.58 and 0.69, respectively. Compared to the 2011 UIP criteria, there was no statistically significant difference in the number of HRCT classified as UIP using the 2018 criteria. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial variation in interobserver agreement between the different parenchymal patterns, which suggests that some patterns a more easily identified than others. There is also a considerable reader variation in the assessment of UIP applying the 2011 UIP criteria as well as applying the 2018 UIP update.
Authors: Eva Criado; Marcelo Sánchez; José Ramírez; Pedro Arguis; Teresa M de Caralt; Rosario J Perea; Antonio Xaubet Journal: Radiographics Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Santiago Enrique Rossi; Tomas Franquet; Mariano Volpacchio; Ana Giménez; Gabriel Aguilar Journal: Radiographics Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Kevin R Flaherty; Adin-Cristian Andrei; Talmadge E King; Ganesh Raghu; Thomas V Colby; Athol Wells; Nadir Bassily; Kevin Brown; Roland du Bois; Andrew Flint; Steven E Gay; Barry H Gross; Ella A Kazerooni; Robert Knapp; Edmund Louvar; David Lynch; Andrew G Nicholson; John Quick; Victor J Thannickal; William D Travis; James Vyskocil; Frazer A Wadenstorer; Jeffrey Wilt; Galen B Toews; Susan Murray; Fernando J Martinez Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2007-01-25 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ganesh Raghu; Harold R Collard; Jim J Egan; Fernando J Martinez; Juergen Behr; Kevin K Brown; Thomas V Colby; Jean-François Cordier; Kevin R Flaherty; Joseph A Lasky; David A Lynch; Jay H Ryu; Jeffrey J Swigris; Athol U Wells; Julio Ancochea; Demosthenes Bouros; Carlos Carvalho; Ulrich Costabel; Masahito Ebina; David M Hansell; Takeshi Johkoh; Dong Soon Kim; Talmadge E King; Yasuhiro Kondoh; Jeffrey Myers; Nestor L Müller; Andrew G Nicholson; Luca Richeldi; Moisés Selman; Rosalind F Dudden; Barbara S Griss; Shandra L Protzko; Holger J Schünemann Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Viviane Baptista Antunes; Gustavo de Souza Portes Meirelles; Dany Jasinowodolinski; Carlos Alberto de Castro Pereira; Carlos Gustavo Yuji Verrastro; Fabíola Goda Torlai; Giuseppe D'Ippolito Journal: J Bras Pneumol Date: 2010 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.624
Authors: Hanaa Al-Khawari; Reji P Athyal; Osama Al-Saeed; Prio N Sada; Sana Al-Muthairi; Adel Al-Awadhi Journal: Ann Saudi Med Date: 2010 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.526
Authors: Jeanny Pan; Johannes Hofmanninger; Karl-Heinz Nenning; Florian Prayer; Sebastian Röhrich; Nicola Sverzellati; Venerino Poletti; Sara Tomassetti; Michael Weber; Helmut Prosch; Georg Langs Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Minna E Mononen; Hannu-Pekka Kettunen; Sanna-Katja Suoranta; Miia S Kärkkäinen; Tuomas A Selander; Minna K Purokivi; Riitta L Kaarteenaho Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2021-04 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Krit Dwivedi; Michael Sharkey; Robin Condliffe; Johanna M Uthoff; Samer Alabed; Peter Metherall; Haiping Lu; Jim M Wild; Eric A Hoffman; Andrew J Swift; David G Kiely Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-04-09
Authors: Elizabeth A Belloli; Tian Gu; Yizhuo Wang; Dharshan Vummidi; Dennis M Lyu; Michael P Combs; Aamer Chughtai; Susan Murray; Craig J Galbán; Vibha N Lama Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2021-10-15 Impact factor: 30.528