OBJECTIVE: We evaluated interobserver and interequipment variability in common carotid and vertebral flow measurements, using seven female members of nursing staff as subjects, four different ultrasound machines and three different radiologists as operators. METHODS: The flow of the common carotid and vertebral arteries in each subject was examined at 0, 10, 20 and 30 min after lying down in a supine position. Peak velocity, end-diastolic velocity, mean velocity, systolic acceleration, cross-sectional area of the vessel, flow volume/min, resistance index and Doppler angle were measured. RESULTS: A large proportion of the variance of peak velocity, cross-sectional area of the vessel and flow volume was patient-related. Significantly different values of end-diastolic velocity, mean velocity, resistance index, Doppler angle and systolic acceleration were obtained with different equipment. Significantly different values of systolic acceleration, vertebral peak velocity, common carotid artery flow and Doppler angle were obtained by different operators. However, part of the variability may be physiological due to the study protocol. CONCLUSION: The use of the same operator and equipment is recommended in follow-up examinations. Copyright 1998 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated interobserver and interequipment variability in common carotid and vertebral flow measurements, using seven female members of nursing staff as subjects, four different ultrasound machines and three different radiologists as operators. METHODS: The flow of the common carotid and vertebral arteries in each subject was examined at 0, 10, 20 and 30 min after lying down in a supine position. Peak velocity, end-diastolic velocity, mean velocity, systolic acceleration, cross-sectional area of the vessel, flow volume/min, resistance index and Doppler angle were measured. RESULTS: A large proportion of the variance of peak velocity, cross-sectional area of the vessel and flow volume was patient-related. Significantly different values of end-diastolic velocity, mean velocity, resistance index, Doppler angle and systolic acceleration were obtained with different equipment. Significantly different values of systolic acceleration, vertebral peak velocity, common carotid artery flow and Doppler angle were obtained by different operators. However, part of the variability may be physiological due to the study protocol. CONCLUSION: The use of the same operator and equipment is recommended in follow-up examinations. Copyright 1998 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.