Observer reliability in CT and MRI of the abdomen/pelvis

Dean M. Reker, James Fletcher, Supranee Tantana, Banti Mahanta, Wenzel Vas, Richard Yoo, Robert J. Gresick, James C. Romeis, Charles C D DuMontier, Elisabeth Heiberg, Michael K. Wolverson, Harry G. Greditzer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to evaluate two sources of error in the performance of computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the abdomen/pelvis. The sources of error assessed were inter- and intra-observer reliability. Thirty abdomen/pelvis CT scans were randomly selected from each of three hospitals (university, VA, military) with different CT scanners. Two radiologists were recruited from each site to be CT observers. Forty-five abdomen/pelvis MRI scans were randomly selected from two institutions with different MRI scanners. Four observers were recruited to read the MRI scans. All scans were read blind without clinical information or patient identification. Overall inter-observer and intra-observer diagnostic agreement was significantly higher for MRI compared to CT. Inter-observer diagnostic agreement rates were also significantly higher for MRI when the etiologies of neoplastic vascular and metabolic/toxic were assigned. Observer experience in CT (range: 5-9 yr) or MRI (range: 2-4 yr) was not statistically associated with improved diagnostic agreement. This research addresses many of the criticisms of the MRI literature and compares MRI favorably to CT.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)577-582
Number of pages6
JournalMagnetic Resonance Imaging
Volume8
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1990
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

abdomen
pelvis
Computerized tomography
Magnetic resonance
Pelvis
Abdomen
magnetic resonance
tomography
Tomography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Imaging techniques
scanners
Research Design
etiology
Poisons
Research
Blood Vessels

Keywords

  • Accuracy
  • CT
  • MRI
  • Observer error
  • Observer reliability
  • Validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Clinical Biochemistry
  • Structural Biology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Condensed Matter Physics

Cite this

Reker, D. M., Fletcher, J., Tantana, S., Mahanta, B., Vas, W., Yoo, R., ... Greditzer, H. G. (1990). Observer reliability in CT and MRI of the abdomen/pelvis. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 8(5), 577-582. https://doi.org/10.1016/0730-725X(90)90134-N

Observer reliability in CT and MRI of the abdomen/pelvis. / Reker, Dean M.; Fletcher, James; Tantana, Supranee; Mahanta, Banti; Vas, Wenzel; Yoo, Richard; Gresick, Robert J.; Romeis, James C.; DuMontier, Charles C D; Heiberg, Elisabeth; Wolverson, Michael K.; Greditzer, Harry G.

In: Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 8, No. 5, 1990, p. 577-582.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Reker, DM, Fletcher, J, Tantana, S, Mahanta, B, Vas, W, Yoo, R, Gresick, RJ, Romeis, JC, DuMontier, CCD, Heiberg, E, Wolverson, MK & Greditzer, HG 1990, 'Observer reliability in CT and MRI of the abdomen/pelvis', Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 577-582. https://doi.org/10.1016/0730-725X(90)90134-N
Reker, Dean M. ; Fletcher, James ; Tantana, Supranee ; Mahanta, Banti ; Vas, Wenzel ; Yoo, Richard ; Gresick, Robert J. ; Romeis, James C. ; DuMontier, Charles C D ; Heiberg, Elisabeth ; Wolverson, Michael K. ; Greditzer, Harry G. / Observer reliability in CT and MRI of the abdomen/pelvis. In: Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1990 ; Vol. 8, No. 5. pp. 577-582.
@article{cb4bc0bd043c495392bce5c9137dc699,
title = "Observer reliability in CT and MRI of the abdomen/pelvis",
abstract = "The purpose of this research was to evaluate two sources of error in the performance of computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the abdomen/pelvis. The sources of error assessed were inter- and intra-observer reliability. Thirty abdomen/pelvis CT scans were randomly selected from each of three hospitals (university, VA, military) with different CT scanners. Two radiologists were recruited from each site to be CT observers. Forty-five abdomen/pelvis MRI scans were randomly selected from two institutions with different MRI scanners. Four observers were recruited to read the MRI scans. All scans were read blind without clinical information or patient identification. Overall inter-observer and intra-observer diagnostic agreement was significantly higher for MRI compared to CT. Inter-observer diagnostic agreement rates were also significantly higher for MRI when the etiologies of neoplastic vascular and metabolic/toxic were assigned. Observer experience in CT (range: 5-9 yr) or MRI (range: 2-4 yr) was not statistically associated with improved diagnostic agreement. This research addresses many of the criticisms of the MRI literature and compares MRI favorably to CT.",
keywords = "Accuracy, CT, MRI, Observer error, Observer reliability, Validity",
author = "Reker, {Dean M.} and James Fletcher and Supranee Tantana and Banti Mahanta and Wenzel Vas and Richard Yoo and Gresick, {Robert J.} and Romeis, {James C.} and DuMontier, {Charles C D} and Elisabeth Heiberg and Wolverson, {Michael K.} and Greditzer, {Harry G.}",
year = "1990",
doi = "10.1016/0730-725X(90)90134-N",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "577--582",
journal = "Magnetic Resonance Imaging",
issn = "0730-725X",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Observer reliability in CT and MRI of the abdomen/pelvis

AU - Reker, Dean M.

AU - Fletcher, James

AU - Tantana, Supranee

AU - Mahanta, Banti

AU - Vas, Wenzel

AU - Yoo, Richard

AU - Gresick, Robert J.

AU - Romeis, James C.

AU - DuMontier, Charles C D

AU - Heiberg, Elisabeth

AU - Wolverson, Michael K.

AU - Greditzer, Harry G.

PY - 1990

Y1 - 1990

N2 - The purpose of this research was to evaluate two sources of error in the performance of computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the abdomen/pelvis. The sources of error assessed were inter- and intra-observer reliability. Thirty abdomen/pelvis CT scans were randomly selected from each of three hospitals (university, VA, military) with different CT scanners. Two radiologists were recruited from each site to be CT observers. Forty-five abdomen/pelvis MRI scans were randomly selected from two institutions with different MRI scanners. Four observers were recruited to read the MRI scans. All scans were read blind without clinical information or patient identification. Overall inter-observer and intra-observer diagnostic agreement was significantly higher for MRI compared to CT. Inter-observer diagnostic agreement rates were also significantly higher for MRI when the etiologies of neoplastic vascular and metabolic/toxic were assigned. Observer experience in CT (range: 5-9 yr) or MRI (range: 2-4 yr) was not statistically associated with improved diagnostic agreement. This research addresses many of the criticisms of the MRI literature and compares MRI favorably to CT.

AB - The purpose of this research was to evaluate two sources of error in the performance of computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the abdomen/pelvis. The sources of error assessed were inter- and intra-observer reliability. Thirty abdomen/pelvis CT scans were randomly selected from each of three hospitals (university, VA, military) with different CT scanners. Two radiologists were recruited from each site to be CT observers. Forty-five abdomen/pelvis MRI scans were randomly selected from two institutions with different MRI scanners. Four observers were recruited to read the MRI scans. All scans were read blind without clinical information or patient identification. Overall inter-observer and intra-observer diagnostic agreement was significantly higher for MRI compared to CT. Inter-observer diagnostic agreement rates were also significantly higher for MRI when the etiologies of neoplastic vascular and metabolic/toxic were assigned. Observer experience in CT (range: 5-9 yr) or MRI (range: 2-4 yr) was not statistically associated with improved diagnostic agreement. This research addresses many of the criticisms of the MRI literature and compares MRI favorably to CT.

KW - Accuracy

KW - CT

KW - MRI

KW - Observer error

KW - Observer reliability

KW - Validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025025741&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025025741&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0730-725X(90)90134-N

DO - 10.1016/0730-725X(90)90134-N

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 577

EP - 582

JO - Magnetic Resonance Imaging

JF - Magnetic Resonance Imaging

SN - 0730-725X

IS - 5

ER -