超声评估脾体积的重测信度。
Test-retest reliability of splenic volume assessment by ultrasonography.
机构信息
Environmental Physiology Group, Department of Health Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Kunskapsgatan 4, 83140, Östersund, Sweden.
Swedish Winter Sports Research Centre, Department of Health Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden.
出版信息
Sci Rep. 2022 Nov 8;12(1):18976. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-23384-6.
While MRI and CT are the gold standards for assessments of splenic size in clinical settings, ultrasonography is particularly suited due to its portability, cost efficiency and easy utilization. However, ultrasonography is associated with subjective assessment, potentially resulting in increased variation. We used a test-retest design aiming to determine the reliability of splenic measurements assessed by ultrasonography during apnea. In addition, we compared reliability between different equations for volume calculations: Koga, Prolate ellipsoid and Pilström. Twelve healthy participants (6 women) performed two tests separated by 15 min, comprising a maximal voluntary apnea in a seated position. Splenic dimensions were measured via ultrasonography for 5 min before and immediately following apnea. Resting splenic volume displayed high test-retest reliability between tests (Pilström: 157 ± 39 mL vs 156 ± 34 mL, p = .651, ICC = .970, p < .001, CV = 2.98 ± 0.1%; Prolate ellipsoid: 154 ± 37 mL vs 144 ± 43 mL, p = .122, ICC = .942, p < .001, CV = 5.47 ± 0.3%; Koga: 142 ± 37 mL vs 140 ± 59 mL, p = .845, ICC = .859, p < .001, CV = 9.72 ± 1.4%). Apnea-induced volumes displayed similar reliability (127 ± 29 mL vs 129 ± 28 mL, p = .359, ICC = .967, p < .001, CV = 3.14 ± 3.1%). Reliability was also high between equations (Pilström vs Prolate ellipsoid: ICC = .818, p < .001, CV = 7.33 ± 0.3%, bias = - 3.1 mL, LoA = - 46.9 to 40.7 mL; Pilström vs Koga: ICC = .618, p < .01, CV = 11.83 ± 1.1%, bias = - 14.8 mL, LoA = - 76.9 to 47.3 mL). We conclude that splenic ultrasonographic measurements have practical applications during laboratory and field-based research as a reliable method detecting splenic volume change consistently between repeated tests. The Pilström equation displayed similar reliability compared to the prolate ellipsoid formula and slightly higher compared to the Koga formula and may be particularly useful to account for individual differences in splenic dimensions.
虽然 MRI 和 CT 是评估脾脏大小的金标准，但由于其便携性、成本效益和易于使用，超声检查尤其适用。然而，超声检查与主观评估相关，可能导致更大的变异性。我们使用了测试-再测试设计，旨在确定在屏气期间通过超声检查评估脾脏大小的可靠性。此外，我们比较了不同体积计算公式（Koga、扁长椭球和 Pilström）之间的可靠性。12 名健康参与者（6 名女性）在 15 分钟的间隔内进行了两次测试，包括在坐姿下进行最大自主屏气。在屏气前和屏气后 5 分钟通过超声检查测量脾脏尺寸。静息脾脏体积在两次测试之间具有很高的测试-再测试可靠性（Pilström：157±39 mL 与 156±34 mL，p=0.651，ICC=0.970，p<0.001，CV=2.98±0.1%；Prolate ellipsoid：154±37 mL 与 144±43 mL，p=0.122，ICC=0.942，p<0.001，CV=5.47±0.3%；Koga：142±37 mL 与 140±59 mL，p=0.845，ICC=0.859，p<0.001，CV=9.72±1.4%）。屏气诱导的体积也显示出相似的可靠性（127±29 mL 与 129±28 mL，p=0.359，ICC=0.967，p<0.001，CV=3.14±3.1%）。公式之间的可靠性也很高（Pilström 与 Prolate ellipsoid：ICC=0.818，p<0.001，CV=7.33±0.3%，偏差=−3.1 mL，LoA=−46.9 至 40.7 mL；Pilström 与 Koga：ICC=0.618，p<0.01，CV=11.83±1.1%，偏差=−14.8 mL，LoA=−76.9 至 47.3 mL）。我们得出结论，脾超声检查测量在实验室和现场研究中具有实际应用价值，作为一种可靠的方法，可以在重复测试之间一致地检测脾体积变化。与扁长椭球公式相比，Pilström 公式显示出相似的可靠性，与 Koga 公式相比略高，可能特别有助于考虑脾尺寸的个体差异。
Zotero 插件