| Literature DB >> 35773182 |
Xiao-Long Li1,2,3,4,5, Yi-Kang Sun1,2,3,4, Qiao Wang1,2,3,4, Zi-Tong Chen1,2,3,4, Zhe-Bin Qian1,2,3,4, Le-Hang Guo1,2,3,4, Hui-Xiong Xu5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the value of synchronous tele-ultrasonography (TUS) for naive operators in thyroid ultrasonography (US) examinations.Entities:
Keywords: Synchronous teleultrasound; Telemedicine; Teleultrasound; Thyroid ultrasound
Year: 2022 PMID: 35773182 PMCID: PMC9532195 DOI: 10.14366/usg.21204
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ultrasonography ISSN: 2288-5919
Fig. 1.Synchronous tele-ultrasonography (TUS) system.
At the patient’s side, resident B (A) scans the patient’s thyroid using an ultrasound machine (Toshiba Aplio 500) (B). The synchronous TUS system allows communication between resident B and the on-site US expert with the help of the high-speed private network (C). In another room 30 m away, the US expert (D) oversees the scanning and gives guidance to resident B using the synchronous TUS system.
Fig. 2.Thyroid measurement and thyroid nodule measurement protocol.
A. The transverse diameter of the right lobe is measured (white mark). B. The antero-posterior (AP) diameter of the right lobe is measured (white mark). C. The transverse diameter of the left lobe is measured (white mark). D. The AP diameter of the left lobe is measured (white mark). E. The thickness of the isthmus of the thyroid is measured (white mark). F. The transverse diameter of the thyroid nodule is measured (white mark). G. The AP diameter of the thyroid nodule is measured (white mark). H. The length of the thyroid nodule is measured (white mark).
Fig. 3.A thyroid ultrasound (US) examination performed by two residents and on-site expert.
A, B. Independent scans is performed by resident A. The adjustment of depth and color of blood is not appropriate. C, D. Scans were performed by resident B with real-time guidance by the on-site US expert. In terms of gray values, time gain compensation, depth, and color Doppler, the adjustment is appropriate and the image quality is high. E, F. Scans is performed by the on-site US expert.
Diagnostic results of resident A and resident B for thyroid nodules
| Resident A | Resident B | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| US detected 69 (71.1) | 66 (68.0) | 0.640 | |
| Same as the expert | 39 (56.5) | 59 (89.4) | <0.001[ |
| Different from the expert | 30 (43.5) | 7 (10.6) | <0.001[ |
| Diagnostic performance | |||
| Sensitivity | 39/66 (59.1) | 59/66 (89.4) | 0.004[ |
| Specificity | 1/31 (3.2) | 24/31 (77.4) | <0.001[ |
| Accuracy | 40/97 (41.2) | 83/97 (85.6) | <0.001[ |
| Positive predictive value | 39/69 (56.5) | 59/66 (89.4) | <0.001[ |
| Negative predictive value | 1/28 (3.6) | 24/31 (77.4) | <0.001[ |
Values are presented as number (%).
US, ultrasonography.
Statistically significant difference.
Inter-operator agreement for target nodule features, ACR TI-RADS categories, and target nodule measurements obtained by resident A, resident B, and the on-site expert
| ICC (resident A vs. on-site expert) | 95% CI | ICC (resident B vs. on-site expert) | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target nodule features | ||||
| Composition | 0.737 | 0.552‒0.853 | 0.819 | 0.714‒0.889 |
| Echogenicity | 0.531 | 0.263‒0.723 | 0.694 | 0.524‒0.806 |
| Shape | 0.392 | 0.091‒0.627 | 0.788 | 0.668‒0.868 |
| Margin | 0.462 | 0.175‒0.676 | 0.657 | 0.484‒0.781 |
| Echogenic foci | 0.602 | 0.356‒0.769 | 0.801 | 0.686‒0.877 |
| Vascularity | 0.647 | 0.420‒0.798 | 0.775 | 0.649‒0.840 |
| ACR TI-RADS categories | 0.724 | 0.533‒0.845 | 0.791 | 0.672‒0.870 |
| Target nodule measurement | ||||
| Transverse diameter | 0.972 | 0.947‒0.985 | 0.979 | 0.965‒0.987 |
| Anterior-posterior diameter | 0.966 | 0.937‒0.982 | 0.984 | 0.973‒0.990 |
| Longitudinal diameter | 0.964 | 0.933‒0.981 | 0.961 | 0.935‒0.976 |
ACR TI-RADS, American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System; ICC, intra-class correlation coefficient; CI, confidence interval.
The transverse and anterior-posterior diameters of the thyroid lobes and the thickness of the isthmus
| Resident A | Resident B | On-site US expert | P-value (resident A vs. resident B) | P-value (resident A vs. US expert) | P-value (resident B vs. US expert) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right lobe | |||||||
| Transverse diameter (mm) | 16.71±2.79 (10.3‒26.0) | 17.82±2.95 (11.6‒26.1) | 17.27±2.96 (10.3‒24.9) | 0.008[ | 0.177 | 0.197 | |
| Anterior-posterior diameter (mm) | 14.88±2.46 (9.6‒21.4) | 14.40±2.76 (9.2‒23.6) | 14.31±2.61 (9.1‒22.8) | 0.203 | 0.119 | 0.814 | |
| Left lobe | |||||||
| Transverse diameter (mm) | 15.99±3.76 (9.9‒37.0) | 17.93±3.93 (11.7‒36.5) | 16.94±3.73 (11.3‒33.1) | 0.001[ | 0.079 | 0.074 | |
| Anterior-posterior diameter (mm) | 13.88±3.42 (8.7‒28.0) | 13.11±3.47 (7.7‒27.7) | 13.73±3.40 (7.9‒28.4) | <0.001[ | 0.020[ | 0.207 | |
| Isthmus | |||||||
| Thickness (mm) | 2.38±1.07 (1.0‒8.1) | 2.25±1.09 (0.9‒7.1) | 2.20±1.11 (0.8‒8.6) | 0.419 | 0.255 | 0.735 | |
Size was expressed as mean±standard deviation (range).
US, ultrasonography.
Statistically significant difference.
Fig. 4.The mean comprehensive assessment score for residents A and B in the rolling cohorts.
As the scanning experience for patients increased, the mean comprehensive assessment score for resident A increased from 2.6 to 3.5, while the mean comprehensive assessment score for resident B increased from 2.7 to 4.9.
Results of image quality analysis
| Resident A | Resident B | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive assessment score | |||
| 1 | 2/97 (2.1) | 1/97 (1.0) | 0.561 |
| 2 | 23/97 (23.7) | 4/97 (0.4) | <0.001[ |
| 3 | 48/97 (49.5) | 22/97 (22.7) | <0.001[ |
| 4 | 19/97 (19.6) | 45/97 (46.4) | <0.001[ |
| 5 | 5/97 (5.2) | 25/97 (23.7) | <0.001[ |
| Total score | 3.02±0.85 | 3.92±0.86 | <0.001[ |
| Qualification rate | |||
| Background image quality | |||
| Gray value | 52 (53.6) | 80 (82.5) | <0.001[ |
| Focus position | 78 (80.4) | 87 (89.7) | 0.070 |
| TGC | 37 (38.1) | 78 (80.4) | <0.001[ |
| Depth | 65 (67.0) | 83 (85.6) | 0.002[ |
| Target nodule image quality | |||
| Color Doppler adjustment | 29 (74.4) | 54 (91.5) | 0.021[ |
| Visibility of all key information | 27 (69.2) | 56 (94.9) | 0.001[ |
Values are presented as number (%) or mean±SD.
TGC, time gain compensation; SD, standard deviation.
Statistically significant difference.
Fig. 5.The mean examination time for resident A and resident B in the rolling cohorts.
As the scanning experience for patients increased, the mean scanning time for resident A in the rolling cohorts decreased from 234 to 154 seconds, and the mean scanning time for resident B decreased from 360 to 173 seconds.
Answers to the questionnaires by resident B and patients
| Object | Question | Alternative options | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Uncertain | ||
| Resident B | Was the guidance using the synchronous TUS helpful for diagnosis? | 61 (62.9) | 34 (35.1) | 2 (2.1) |
| Did the guidance using the synchronous TUS have a training effect on me? | 63 (64.9) | 33 (34.0) | 1 (1.0) | |
| Patients | Would you accept the synchronous TUS? | 60 (61.9) | 32 (33.0) | 5 (5.2) |
| Are you willing to pay for this new method of examination? | 58 (59.8) | 35 (36.1) | 4 (4.1) | |
Values are presented as number (%).
TUS, tele-ultrasonography.