Reproducibility Validation Study Comparing Analog and Digital Imaging Technologies for the Measurement of Intima-Media Thickness
Why the study?
Does a digital imaging system have comparable reproducibility to an analog system for measuring common carotid intima-media thickness in subjects with varying degrees of IMT?
Population
22 subjects with varying degrees of intima-media thickness (IMT) on the far wall of the common carotid artery
Comparison
Digital B-mode imaging system (Esaote AU4) vs Analog B-mode imaging system (Biosound 2000II)
Design
Other
Follow-up
replicate scans within 2 weeks
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Supports digital carotid IMT measurement in trials; leaves open multicenter validation before wider adoption.
Structured PICO
Does a digital imaging system have comparable reproducibility to an analog system for measuring common carotid intima-media thickness in subjects with varying degrees of IMT?
P
Population
22 subjects with varying degrees of intima-media thickness (IMT) on the far wall of the common carotid artery
I
Intervention
Digital B-mode imaging system (Esaote AU4)
C
Comparator
Analog B-mode imaging system (Biosound 2000II)
O
Outcome
Reproducibility of common carotid IMT measurement (bias, mean absolute difference, repeatability coefficient, and correlation coefficient)surrogate
Digital B-mode imaging systems provide highly reproducible measurements of carotid IMT comparable to analog systems, supporting their reliable use in clinical trials.
Cite This Study
Baldassarre et al. (2000) studied this question.