Why the study?
The accuracy of semiautomatic planimetric measurement and the necessity of manually adjusted boundary measurement for 3-dimensional ultrasound plaque volume had not been evaluated.
Do different 3-dimensional ultrasound methods (SAPM vs CTM) provide consistent and reliable measurements of carotid plaque volume in patients with carotid plaques?
Do different 3-dimensional ultrasound methods (SAPM vs CTM) provide consistent and reliable measurements of carotid plaque volume in patients with carotid plaques?
The semiautomatic planimetric measurement method with manually adjusted boundaries provides reliable and consistent 3-dimensional ultrasound measurements of carotid plaque volume.
Supports reliable 3D ultrasound carotid plaque volumetry; hypothesis-generating pending outcome validation.
This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the semiautomatic planimetric measurement (SAPM) method and the necessity of manually adjusted boundary measurement in 3-dimensional ultrasound measurement of plaque volume. A total of 50 patients with 82 plaques in the common carotid arteries between December 2020 and March 2021 were included in this study. Two observers measured the 3-dimensional volume of plaque for each patient in 3 different methods (contour tracing method [CTM], SAPM method without manually adjusted boundary [SAPM1], and SAPM method with manually adjusted boundary [SAPM2]). The difference in measurement time between the 3 methods was evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis H test. Intraclass correlation coefficient and 95% confidence interval were used to evaluate the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the 3 measurement modes. The Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the agreement, which was expressed as the mean difference with the 95% limits of agreement (LOA). The difference in measurement time between the 3 methods was statistically significant ( P < 0.001). Both observers' intraobserver and interobserver reliability showed well in the 3 methods (all of the intraclass correlation coefficients were >0.75). The mean differences of the plaque volume measurement were 38.17, 26.42, and 11.75 mm 3 , respectively. The agreement between CTM and SAPM2 was the best, and LOA was -57.00 to 80.51. The agreement between SAPM1 and SAPM2 and the agreement between SAPM1 and CTM were similar, and the LOAs were -126.10 to 202.40 and -158.00 to 210.80, respectively. The SAPM method may be recommended to measure plaque volume in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ren et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: