Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, cilt.54, sa.3, ss.537-544, 2024 (SCI-Expanded)
Background/aim: Total kidney volume (TKV) is a parameter used in both treatment decision and follow-up in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate intra-and interobserver agreement of the ellipsoid formula (EF) and manual boundary tracing method (MBTM) used in TKV measurement of ADPKD patients across different levels of experience radiologists. Additionally, the study aimed to evaluate the correlation between the EF and MBTM, which is considered the gold standard for TKV. Materials and methods: A retrospective evaluation was conducted on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from 55 ADPKD patients who underwent abdominal MRI between January 2017 and November 2021 to evaluate TKV. TKV measurements were performed by three independent observers (observer 1, an abdominal imaging radiologist with 5 years of experience; observer 2, a fourth-year radiology resident; observer 3, a second-year radiology resident). To assess intraobserver variability, all observers repeated the measurements at two-week intervals. The ICC was used to assess both intraobserver and interobserver variability. A comparison of the two methods was performed by linear regression for all three observers. Results: The ICC (95% CI) indicated excellent agreement between the observers for both methods (among all observers, p < 0.001). Furthermore, excellent intraobserver agreement was found between all observer measurements either EF or MBTM based on ICC (95% CI) (p < 0.001). The results of the linear regression analysis demonstrated high correlations between the two methods in all three observers (r = 0.992, p < 0.001 for the first observer; r = 0.975, p < 0.001 for the second observer; r = 0.989, p < 0.001 for the third observer). Conclusion: Both the EF and MBTM methods used for the measurement of TKV provided excellent intra-and interobserver reproducibility. The EF is as accurate and precise as the MBTM. It may therefore be preferred in radiology departments with heavy workload, as it is a reliable method for rapid and easy assessment, independent of experience.