Inter-observer variability of radiologists for Cambridge classification of chronic pancreatitis using CT and MRCP: results from a large multi-center study

Clicks: 213
ID: 261438
2020
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #23 of 56 articles by views in abdominal radiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Determine inter-observer variability among radiologists in assigning Cambridge Classification (CC) of chronic pancreatitis (CP) based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). Among 422 eligible subjects enrolled into the PROCEED study between 6/2017 and 8/2018, 39 were selected randomly for this study (chronic abdominal pain (n = 8; CC of 0), suspected CP (n = 22; CC of 0, 1 or 2) or definite CP (n = 9; CC of 3 or 4). Each imaging was scored by the local radiologist (LRs) and three of five central radiologists (CRs) at other consortium sites. The CRs were blinded to clinical data and site information of the participants. We compared the CC score assigned by the LR with the consensus CC score assigned by the CRs. The weighted kappa statistic (K) was used to estimate the inter-observer agreement. For the majority of subjects (34/39), the group assignment by LR agreed with the consensus composite CT/MRCP score by the CRs (concordance ranging from 75 to 89% depending on cohort group). There was moderate agreement (63% and 67% agreed, respectively) between CRs and LRs in both the CT score (weighted Kappa [95% CI] = 0.56 [0.34, 0.78]; p-value = 0.57) and the MR score (weighted Kappa [95% CI] = 0.68 [0.49, 0.86]; p-value = 0.72). The composite CT/MR score showed moderate agreement (weighted Kappa [95% CI] = 0.62 [0.43, 0.81]; p-value = 0.80). There is a high degree of concordance among radiologists for assignment of CC using MRI and CT.
Reference Key
tirkes2020abdominalinter-observer Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Temel Tirkes;Zarine K. Shah;Naoki Takahashi;Joseph R. Grajo;Stephanie T. Chang;Ashley M. Wachsman;Kareem Mawad;Carlos A. Farinas;Liang Li;Savitri N. Appana;Darwin L. Conwell;Dhiraj Yadav;Anil K. Dasyam;Temel Tirkes;Zarine K. Shah;Naoki Takahashi;Joseph R. Grajo;Stephanie T. Chang;Ashley M. Wachsman;Kareem Mawad;Carlos A. Farinas;Liang Li;Savitri N. Appana;Darwin L. Conwell;Dhiraj Yadav;Anil K. Dasyam;
Journal abdominal radiology
Year 2020
DOI
doi:10.1007/s00261-020-02521-7
URL
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00261-020-02521-7
Keywords
hepatology gastroenterology imaging / radiology

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.