HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ouwendijk, R. Articles by Hunink, M. G. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ouwendijk, R. Articles by Hunink, M. G. M. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Interobserver Agreement for the Interpretation of Contrast-Enhanced 3D MR Angiography and MDCT Angiography in Peripheral Arterial Disease

¹ Departments of Radiology and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Erasmus Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 50, Rm. Ee 2118, 3015 GE Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
² Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Hospital, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare interobserver agreement for interpretations of contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography and MDCT angiography in patients with peripheral arterial disease.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Of 226 eligible patients, 69 were excluded. The remaining 157 consecutive patients were prospectively randomized to either MR angiography (n = 78) or MDCT angiography (n = 79). Two observers independently evaluated for arterial stenosis or occlusion on MR angiography (2,157 segments) and MDCT angiography (2,419 segments) using a 5-point ordinal scale. Vessel wall calcifications were noted. Interobserver agreement for each technique was evaluated with a weighted kappa (_w) statistic.

RESULTS. Although interobserver agreement for both was excellent, the interobserver agreement for MR angiography (_w = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89–0.92) was higher than that for MDCT angiography (_w = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83–0.86) for reporting the degree of arterial stenosis or occlusion in all segments. For the different anatomic locations, the interobserver agreement for MR angiography versus MDCT angiography was as follows: aortoiliac (_w =0.91 vs 0.84, respectively), femoropopliteal (_w = 0.91 vs 0.87), and crural (_w = 0.90 vs 0.83) segments. The interobserver agreement of MDCT angiography significantly decreased in the presence of calcifications but was still good for all anatomic locations. The lowest agreement was found for crural segments in the presence of calcifications (_w = 0.67). With MR angiography, there were 12 times more nondiagnostic segments than with MDCT angiography (81 vs 7, respectively).

CONCLUSION. Interpretations of MR angiography and MDCT angiography for peripheral arterial disease have an excellent interobserver agreement. MR angiography has a higher interobserver agreement than MDCT angiography, and the presence of calcified segments significantly decreases interobserver agreement for MDCT angiography.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. H. Heijenbrok-Kal, M. C. J. M. Kock, and M. G. M. Hunink Lower Extremity Arterial Disease: Multidetector CT Angiography Meta-Analysis Radiology, November 1, 2007; 245(2): 433 - 439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Ouwendijk, M. C. J. M. Kock, L. C. van Dijk, M. R. H. M. van Sambeek, T. Stijnen, and M. G. M. Hunink Vessel Wall Calcifications at Multi-Detector Row CT Angiography in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease: Effect on Clinical Utility and Clinical Predictors Radiology, November 1, 2006; 241(2): 603 - 608. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]