Measurement of Posterior Acoustic Stone Shadow on Ultrasound Is a Learnable Skill for Inexperienced Users to Improve Accuracy of Stone Sizing

Jessica C. Dai, Barbrina Dunmire, Ziyue Liu, Kevan M. Sternberg, Michael R. Bailey, Jonathan D. Harper, Mathew D. Sorensen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Studies suggest that the width of the acoustic shadow on ultrasound (US) more accurately reflects true stone size than the stone width in US images. We evaluated the need for training in the adoption of the acoustic shadow sizing technique by clinical providers. Methods: Providers without shadow sizing experience were recruited and assigned in a stratified, alternating manner to receive a training tutorial ("trained") or no intervention ("control"). Each conducted a baseline assessment of 24 clinical US images; where present, shadow width was measured using custom calipers. The trained group subsequently completed a standardized training module on shadow sizing. All subjects repeated measurements after ∼1 week. Group demographics were compared using Fisher's exact test. Measurements were compared to clinically reported stone sizes on corresponding CT and US using mixed-effects models. One millimeter concordance between shadow and CT size was compared using a generalized linear mixed-effects model. Results: Twenty-six subjects were included. There was no significant difference between groups in demographics, clinical role, or US experience. Mean reported CT and US stone sizes were 6.8 ± 4.0 mm and 10.3 ± 4.1 mm, respectively. At baseline, there was no difference in shadow size measurements between groups (p = 0.18), and shadow size was no more accurate than US stone size (p = 0.28 trained; p = 0.81 control), compared to CT. After training, overestimation bias of shadow size in the trained group decreased to 1.6 ± 0.5 mm (p < 0.01), relative to CT. This was not significantly associated with clinical rank, US experience, or stone-measuring experience. One millimeter concordance with CT size significantly increased from 23% to 35% of stones after training (p = 0.01). No significant improvement occurred in the control group. Conclusion: Acoustic shadow sizing was readily adopted by inexperienced providers, but was not more accurate than reported US stone sizes without training. Education on shadow sizing may be warranted before clinical adoption.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1033-1038
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume32
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2018

Fingerprint

Acoustics
Demography
Education
Control Groups

Keywords

  • accuracy
  • kidney stone
  • nephrolithiasis
  • posterior acoustic shadow
  • sizing
  • ultrasound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Measurement of Posterior Acoustic Stone Shadow on Ultrasound Is a Learnable Skill for Inexperienced Users to Improve Accuracy of Stone Sizing. / Dai, Jessica C.; Dunmire, Barbrina; Liu, Ziyue; Sternberg, Kevan M.; Bailey, Michael R.; Harper, Jonathan D.; Sorensen, Mathew D.

In: Journal of Endourology, Vol. 32, No. 11, 01.11.2018, p. 1033-1038.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dai, Jessica C. ; Dunmire, Barbrina ; Liu, Ziyue ; Sternberg, Kevan M. ; Bailey, Michael R. ; Harper, Jonathan D. ; Sorensen, Mathew D. / Measurement of Posterior Acoustic Stone Shadow on Ultrasound Is a Learnable Skill for Inexperienced Users to Improve Accuracy of Stone Sizing. In: Journal of Endourology. 2018 ; Vol. 32, No. 11. pp. 1033-1038.
@article{be1b37ca22f94bfc99737fe03f3bebb9,
title = "Measurement of Posterior Acoustic Stone Shadow on Ultrasound Is a Learnable Skill for Inexperienced Users to Improve Accuracy of Stone Sizing",
abstract = "Introduction: Studies suggest that the width of the acoustic shadow on ultrasound (US) more accurately reflects true stone size than the stone width in US images. We evaluated the need for training in the adoption of the acoustic shadow sizing technique by clinical providers. Methods: Providers without shadow sizing experience were recruited and assigned in a stratified, alternating manner to receive a training tutorial ({"}trained{"}) or no intervention ({"}control{"}). Each conducted a baseline assessment of 24 clinical US images; where present, shadow width was measured using custom calipers. The trained group subsequently completed a standardized training module on shadow sizing. All subjects repeated measurements after ∼1 week. Group demographics were compared using Fisher's exact test. Measurements were compared to clinically reported stone sizes on corresponding CT and US using mixed-effects models. One millimeter concordance between shadow and CT size was compared using a generalized linear mixed-effects model. Results: Twenty-six subjects were included. There was no significant difference between groups in demographics, clinical role, or US experience. Mean reported CT and US stone sizes were 6.8 ± 4.0 mm and 10.3 ± 4.1 mm, respectively. At baseline, there was no difference in shadow size measurements between groups (p = 0.18), and shadow size was no more accurate than US stone size (p = 0.28 trained; p = 0.81 control), compared to CT. After training, overestimation bias of shadow size in the trained group decreased to 1.6 ± 0.5 mm (p < 0.01), relative to CT. This was not significantly associated with clinical rank, US experience, or stone-measuring experience. One millimeter concordance with CT size significantly increased from 23{\%} to 35{\%} of stones after training (p = 0.01). No significant improvement occurred in the control group. Conclusion: Acoustic shadow sizing was readily adopted by inexperienced providers, but was not more accurate than reported US stone sizes without training. Education on shadow sizing may be warranted before clinical adoption.",
keywords = "accuracy, kidney stone, nephrolithiasis, posterior acoustic shadow, sizing, ultrasound",
author = "Dai, {Jessica C.} and Barbrina Dunmire and Ziyue Liu and Sternberg, {Kevan M.} and Bailey, {Michael R.} and Harper, {Jonathan D.} and Sorensen, {Mathew D.}",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/end.2018.0577",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "1033--1038",
journal = "Journal of Endourology",
issn = "0892-7790",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measurement of Posterior Acoustic Stone Shadow on Ultrasound Is a Learnable Skill for Inexperienced Users to Improve Accuracy of Stone Sizing

AU - Dai, Jessica C.

AU - Dunmire, Barbrina

AU - Liu, Ziyue

AU - Sternberg, Kevan M.

AU - Bailey, Michael R.

AU - Harper, Jonathan D.

AU - Sorensen, Mathew D.

PY - 2018/11/1

Y1 - 2018/11/1

N2 - Introduction: Studies suggest that the width of the acoustic shadow on ultrasound (US) more accurately reflects true stone size than the stone width in US images. We evaluated the need for training in the adoption of the acoustic shadow sizing technique by clinical providers. Methods: Providers without shadow sizing experience were recruited and assigned in a stratified, alternating manner to receive a training tutorial ("trained") or no intervention ("control"). Each conducted a baseline assessment of 24 clinical US images; where present, shadow width was measured using custom calipers. The trained group subsequently completed a standardized training module on shadow sizing. All subjects repeated measurements after ∼1 week. Group demographics were compared using Fisher's exact test. Measurements were compared to clinically reported stone sizes on corresponding CT and US using mixed-effects models. One millimeter concordance between shadow and CT size was compared using a generalized linear mixed-effects model. Results: Twenty-six subjects were included. There was no significant difference between groups in demographics, clinical role, or US experience. Mean reported CT and US stone sizes were 6.8 ± 4.0 mm and 10.3 ± 4.1 mm, respectively. At baseline, there was no difference in shadow size measurements between groups (p = 0.18), and shadow size was no more accurate than US stone size (p = 0.28 trained; p = 0.81 control), compared to CT. After training, overestimation bias of shadow size in the trained group decreased to 1.6 ± 0.5 mm (p < 0.01), relative to CT. This was not significantly associated with clinical rank, US experience, or stone-measuring experience. One millimeter concordance with CT size significantly increased from 23% to 35% of stones after training (p = 0.01). No significant improvement occurred in the control group. Conclusion: Acoustic shadow sizing was readily adopted by inexperienced providers, but was not more accurate than reported US stone sizes without training. Education on shadow sizing may be warranted before clinical adoption.

AB - Introduction: Studies suggest that the width of the acoustic shadow on ultrasound (US) more accurately reflects true stone size than the stone width in US images. We evaluated the need for training in the adoption of the acoustic shadow sizing technique by clinical providers. Methods: Providers without shadow sizing experience were recruited and assigned in a stratified, alternating manner to receive a training tutorial ("trained") or no intervention ("control"). Each conducted a baseline assessment of 24 clinical US images; where present, shadow width was measured using custom calipers. The trained group subsequently completed a standardized training module on shadow sizing. All subjects repeated measurements after ∼1 week. Group demographics were compared using Fisher's exact test. Measurements were compared to clinically reported stone sizes on corresponding CT and US using mixed-effects models. One millimeter concordance between shadow and CT size was compared using a generalized linear mixed-effects model. Results: Twenty-six subjects were included. There was no significant difference between groups in demographics, clinical role, or US experience. Mean reported CT and US stone sizes were 6.8 ± 4.0 mm and 10.3 ± 4.1 mm, respectively. At baseline, there was no difference in shadow size measurements between groups (p = 0.18), and shadow size was no more accurate than US stone size (p = 0.28 trained; p = 0.81 control), compared to CT. After training, overestimation bias of shadow size in the trained group decreased to 1.6 ± 0.5 mm (p < 0.01), relative to CT. This was not significantly associated with clinical rank, US experience, or stone-measuring experience. One millimeter concordance with CT size significantly increased from 23% to 35% of stones after training (p = 0.01). No significant improvement occurred in the control group. Conclusion: Acoustic shadow sizing was readily adopted by inexperienced providers, but was not more accurate than reported US stone sizes without training. Education on shadow sizing may be warranted before clinical adoption.

KW - accuracy

KW - kidney stone

KW - nephrolithiasis

KW - posterior acoustic shadow

KW - sizing

KW - ultrasound

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056422846&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056422846&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/end.2018.0577

DO - 10.1089/end.2018.0577

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 1033

EP - 1038

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

SN - 0892-7790

IS - 11

ER -