Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 206–212 | Cite as

Intraobserver and interobserver reliability in sonographic size measurements of gallbladder polyps

  • Seul Bi Lee
  • Yedaun LeeEmail author
  • Seung Jin Kim
  • Jung Hee Yoon
  • Seung Ho Kim
  • Suk Jung Kim
  • Hyun Kyung Jung
  • Seok Hahn
  • Hye Jin Baek
Hepatobiliary-Pancreas
  • 103 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of gallbladder polyp measurements using transabdominal US and the factors that affect reliability.

Methods

From November 2017 to February 2018, two radiologists measured the maximum diameter of 91 gallbladder polyps using transabdominal US. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement were determined using 95% Bland-Altman limits of agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The effects of image settings, polyp location, and polyp size were evaluated by comparing ICCs using z tests.

Results

The intraobserver agreement rates were 0.960 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.939–0.973) for observer 1 and 0.962 (95% CI, 0.943–0.975) for observer 2. The ICCs between the two observers were 0.963 (95% CI, 0.926–0.979) for the first measurement and 0.973 (95% CI, 0.950–0.984) for the second measurement. The 95% limits of agreement on repeated measurements were 22.3–25.2% of the mean, and those between the two observers were 25.5–34.2% of the mean. ICCs for large polyps (≥ 5 mm) were significantly higher than those for small polyps (< 5 mm). There were no significant differences in the ICCs between image settings and polyp location.

Conclusions

Polyp size measurements using transabdominal US are highly repeatable and reproducible. Polyp size significantly affects the reliability of measurement. Diameter changes of approximately less than 25% may fall within the measurement error; this should be considered while interpreting the change in size during follow-up US, especially for small polyps.

Key Points

• Gallbladder polyp size measurement using transabdominal US is highly repeatable and reproducible.

• Diameter changes of approximately less than 25% should be interpreted carefully, especially in small polyps.

Keywords

Gallbladder Observer variation Polyps Reproducibility of results Ultrasonography 

Abbreviations

CI

Confidence interval

ICCs

Intraclass correlation coefficients

LOA

Limit of agreement

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Yedaun Lee.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Lin WR, Lin DY, Tai DI et al (2008) Prevalence of and risk factors for gallbladder polyps detected by ultrasonography among healthy Chinese: analysis of 34 669 cases. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 23:965–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kratzer W, Haenle MM, Voegtle A et al (2008) Ultrasonographically detected gallbladder polyps: a reason for concern? A seven-year follow-up study. BMC Gastroenterol 8:41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aldridge MC, Bismuth H (1990) Gallbladder cancer: the polyp-cancer sequence. Br J Surg 77:363–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albores-Saavedra J, Chablé-Montero F, González-Romo MA, Ramírez Jaramillo M, Henson DE (2012) Adenomas of the gallbladder. Morphologic features, expression of gastric and intestinal mucins, and incidence of high-grade dysplasia/carcinoma in situ and invasive carcinoma. Hum Pathol 43:1506–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kozuka S, Tsubone N, Yasui A, Hachisuka K (1982) Relation of adenoma to carcinoma in the gallbladder. Cancer 50:2226–2234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hundal R, Shaffer EA (2014) Gallbladder cancer: epidemiology and outcome. Clin Epidemiol 6:99–109PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mellnick VM, Menias CO, Sandrasegaran K et al (2015) Polypoid lesions of the gallbladder: disease spectrum with pathologic correlation. Radiographics 35:387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wiles R, Thoeni RF, Barbu ST et al (2017) Management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps. Eur Radiol 27:3856–3866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Park JK, Yoon YB, Kim YT et al (2008) Management strategies for gallbladder polyps: is it possible to predict malignant gallbladder polyps? Gut Liver 2:88–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Myers RP, Shaffer EA, Beck PL (2002) Gallbladder polyps: epidemiology, natural history and management. Can J Gastroenterol 16:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee KF, Wong J, Li JC, Lai PB (2004) Polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. Am J Surg 188:186–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koppenhaver SL, Hebert JJ, Fritz JM, Parent EC, Teyhen DS, Magel JS (2009) Reliability of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging of the transversus abdominis and lumbar multifidus muscles. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90(1):87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zwiers I, Hoogland CM, Mackaay AJ (2016) Reliability of ultrasound diameter measurements in patients with a small asymptomatic popliteal artery aneurysm: an intra-and inter-observer agreement study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 51(3):410–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chantarojanasiri T, Hirooka Y, Kawashima H, Ohno E, Kongkam P, Goto H (2017) The role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of gallbladder diseases. J Med Ultrason 44(1):63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akatsu T, Aiura K, Shimazu M et al (2006) Can endoscopic ultrasonography differentiate nonneoplastic from neoplastic gallbladder polyps? Dig Dis Sci 51(2):416–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim SY, Cho JH, Kim EJ et al (2018) The efficacy of real-time colour Doppler flow imaging on endoscopic ultrasonography for differential diagnosis between neoplastic and non-neoplastic gallbladder polyps. Eur Radiol 28(5):1994–2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bae JS, Kim SH, Kang HJ et al (2019) Quantitative contrast-enhanced US helps differentiating neoplastic vs non-neoplastic gallbladder polyps. Eur Radiol 29(7):3772–3781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Choi TW, Kim JH, Park SJ, Ahn SJ, Joo I, Han JK (2018) Risk stratification of gallbladder polyps larger than 10 mm using high-resolution ultrasonography and texture analysis. Eur Radiol 28(1):196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bhatt NR, Gillis A, Smoothey CO, Awan FN, Ridgway PF (2016) Evidence based management of polyps of the gall bladder: a systematic review of the risk factors of malignancy. Surgeon 14:278–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cairns V, Neal CP, Dennison AR, Garcea G (2012) Risk and cost-effectiveness of surveillance followed by cholecystectomy for gallbladder polyps. Arch Surg 147:1078–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee HJ, Yoon DY, Seo YL et al (2018) Intraobserver and interobserver variability in ultrasound measurements of thyroid nodules. J Ultrasound Med 37:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tegnander E, Eik-Nes SH (2006) The examiner's ultrasound experience has a significant impact on the detection rate of congenital heart defects at the second-trimester fetal examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28(1):8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyInje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik HospitalBusanRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of RadiologySeoul National University HospitalSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyGyeongsang National University School of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Changwon HospitalChangwonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations