% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Sachpekidis:163653,
author = {C. Sachpekidis and R. Schepers and M. Marti and A.
Kopp-Schneider$^*$ and I. Alberts and G. Keramida and A.
Afshar-Oromieh and A. Rominger},
title = {99m{T}c-{MAG}3 {D}iuretic {R}enography: {I}ntra- and
{I}nter-{O}bserver {R}epeatability in the {A}ssessment of
{R}enal {F}unction.},
journal = {Diagnostics},
volume = {10},
number = {9},
issn = {2075-4418},
address = {Basel},
publisher = {MDPI},
reportid = {DKFZ-2020-01931},
pages = {709},
year = {2020},
abstract = {The 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.},
cin = {C060},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331},
pnm = {313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:32957695},
doi = {10.3390/diagnostics10090709},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/163653},
}