OBJECTIVES: To assess quality and variability in measurements of the infrarenal aortic diameter by ultrasound, and to recommend quality control measures to improve consistency in measurements of the infrarenal aortic diameter (IAD) in a long running screening programme. SETTING: An aneurysm screening programme in Huntingdon. METHODS: Quality of the ultrasound image was subjectively assessed by each ultrasonographer. Quality of the measurements was assessed by analysing the frequency of measurements that were outside the normal variability of the estimated true diameter. The interobserver variability was measured by analysing repeated measurements of the IAD in the same patient by two ultrasonographers, using the same scanner. The variability between different scanners was measured by analysing repeat measurements of the IAD in the same patient by the same ultrasonographer, using two scanners. The intraobserver variability was estimated by analysing all patients with three consecutive measurements of the IAD, carried out by the same ultrasonographer. RESULTS: Although the subjective assessment of the quality of the ultrasound image of the aorta varied, there were no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of obtaining measurements outside the limits of agreement between the ultrasonographers. The interobserver, intraobserver, and between scanner variability of ultrasound measurements of the IAD were all around 6 mm. CONCLUSION: The variability in ultrasound measurements of aortic diameters is acceptable for clinical decision making, and the interobserver variability is very similar to the long term intraobserver variability. Quality control measures are suggested to maintain long term consistency of ultrasound measurements of the IAD.
OBJECTIVES: To assess quality and variability in measurements of the infrarenal aortic diameter by ultrasound, and to recommend quality control measures to improve consistency in measurements of the infrarenal aortic diameter (IAD) in a long running screening programme. SETTING: An aneurysm screening programme in Huntingdon. METHODS: Quality of the ultrasound image was subjectively assessed by each ultrasonographer. Quality of the measurements was assessed by analysing the frequency of measurements that were outside the normal variability of the estimated true diameter. The interobserver variability was measured by analysing repeated measurements of the IAD in the same patient by two ultrasonographers, using the same scanner. The variability between different scanners was measured by analysing repeat measurements of the IAD in the same patient by the same ultrasonographer, using two scanners. The intraobserver variability was estimated by analysing all patients with three consecutive measurements of the IAD, carried out by the same ultrasonographer. RESULTS: Although the subjective assessment of the quality of the ultrasound image of the aorta varied, there were no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of obtaining measurements outside the limits of agreement between the ultrasonographers. The interobserver, intraobserver, and between scanner variability of ultrasound measurements of the IAD were all around 6 mm. CONCLUSION: The variability in ultrasound measurements of aortic diameters is acceptable for clinical decision making, and the interobserver variability is very similar to the long term intraobserver variability. Quality control measures are suggested to maintain long term consistency of ultrasound measurements of the IAD.
Authors: Ahmed Klink; Fabien Hyafil; James Rudd; Peter Faries; Valentin Fuster; Ziad Mallat; Olivier Meilhac; Willem J M Mulder; Jean-Baptiste Michel; Francesco Ramirez; Gert Storm; Robert Thompson; Irene C Turnbull; Jesus Egido; Jose L Martín-Ventura; Carlos Zaragoza; Didier Letourneur; Zahi A Fayad Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2011-02-08 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Aneesh K Ramaswamy; Mark Hamilton; Rucha V Joshi; Benjamin P Kline; Rui Li; Pu Wang; Craig J Goergen Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2013-04-23