000163653 001__ 163653
000163653 005__ 20240229123154.0
000163653 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.3390/diagnostics10090709
000163653 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:32957695
000163653 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:90509909
000163653 037__ $$aDKFZ-2020-01931
000163653 041__ $$aeng
000163653 082__ $$a610
000163653 1001_ $$aSachpekidis, Christos$$b0
000163653 245__ $$a99mTc-MAG3 Diuretic Renography: Intra- and Inter-Observer Repeatability in the Assessment of Renal Function.
000163653 260__ $$aBasel$$bMDPI$$c2020
000163653 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000163653 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000163653 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1600951663_17755
000163653 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000163653 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000163653 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000163653 520__ $$aThe aim of the present study is to evaluate the intra- and inter-observer agreement in assessing the renal function by means of 99mTc-MAG3 diuretic renography. One hundred and twenty adults were enrolled in the study. One experienced and one junior radiographer processed the renograms twice by assigning manual and semi-automated regions of interest. The differential renal function (DRF, %), time to maximum counts for the right and left kidney (TmaxR-TmaxL, min) and time to half-peak counts (T1/2, min) were calculated. The Bland-Altman analysis (bias±95% limits of agreement), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient and weighted Fleiss' kappa coefficient were used to assess agreement. Based on the Bland-Altman analysis, the intra-observer repeatability results for the experienced radiographer using the manual and the semi-automated techniques were 0.2 ± 2.6% and 0.3 ± 6.4% (DRF), respectively, -0.01 ± 0.24 and 0.00 ± 0.34 (TmaxR), respectively, and 0.00 ± 0.26 and 0.00 ± 0.33 (TmaxL), respectively. For the junior radiographer, the respective results were 0.5 ± 5.0% and 0.8 ± 9.4% (DRF), 0.00 ± 0.44 and 0.01 ± 0.28 (TmaxR), and 0.01 ± 0.28 and -0.02 ± 0.44 (TmaxL). The inter-observer repeatability for the manual method was 0.6 ± 5.0% (DRF), -0.10 ± 0.42 (TmaxR) and -0.05 ± 0.38 (TmaxL), and for the semi-automated method -0.2 ± 9.1% (DRF), 0.00 ± 0.31 (TmaxR) and -0.05 ± 0.40 (TmaxL). The weighted Fleiss' kappa coefficient for the T1/2 assessments ranged between 0.85-0.97 for both intra- and inter-observer repeatability with both methods. These findings suggest a very good repeatability in DRF assessment with the manual method-especially for the experienced observer-but a less good repeatability with the semi-automated approach. The calculation of Tmax was also operator-dependent. We conclude that reader experience is important in the calculation of renal parameters. We therefore encourage reader training in renal scintigraphy. Moreover, the manual tool seems to perform better than the semi-automated tool. Thus, we encourage cautious use of automated tools and adjunct validation by manual methods where possible.
000163653 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313$$a313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)$$cPOF3-313$$fPOF III$$x0
000163653 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
000163653 7001_ $$aSchepers, Robin$$b1
000163653 7001_ $$aMarti, Monika$$b2
000163653 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)bb6a7a70f976eb8df1769944bf913596$$aKopp-Schneider, Annette$$b3$$udkfz
000163653 7001_ $$aAlberts, Ian$$b4
000163653 7001_ $$aKeramida, Georgia$$b5
000163653 7001_ $$aAfshar-Oromieh, Ali$$b6
000163653 7001_ $$aRominger, Axel$$b7
000163653 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2662336-5$$a10.3390/diagnostics10090709$$gVol. 10, no. 9, p. 709 -$$n9$$p709 $$tDiagnostics$$v10$$x2075-4418$$y2020
000163653 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:163653$$pVDB
000163653 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)bb6a7a70f976eb8df1769944bf913596$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b3$$kDKFZ
000163653 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vCancer risk factors and prevention$$x0
000163653 9141_ $$y2020
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bDIAGNOSTICS : 2018$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0320$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bPubMed Central$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0501$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ Seal$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0500$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bDOAJ : Blind peer review$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV$$2V:(DE-HGF)$$aCreative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)$$bDOAJ$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0160$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEssential Science Indicators$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5$$d2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0561$$2StatID$$aArticle Processing Charges$$f2020-01-16
000163653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0700$$2StatID$$aFees$$d2020-01-16
000163653 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331$$kC060$$lC060 Biostatistik$$x0
000163653 980__ $$ajournal
000163653 980__ $$aVDB
000163653 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)C060-20160331
000163653 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED