Limits...
Reproducibility of dynamically represented acoustic lung images from healthy individuals.

Maher TM, Gat M, Allen D, Devaraj A, Wells AU, Geddes DM - Thorax (2007)

Bottom Line: There was no significant difference found between the six raters at any time point.Acoustic lung imaging is reproducible in healthy individuals.Graphic representation of lung images can be interpreted with a high degree of accuracy by the same and by different reviewers.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Respiratory Medicine, Interstitial Lung Disease Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney St, London SW3 6NP, UK. t.maher@ucl.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Background and aim: Acoustic lung imaging offers a unique method for visualising the lung. This study was designed to demonstrate reproducibility of acoustic lung images recorded from healthy individuals at different time points and to assess intra- and inter-rater agreement in the assessment of dynamically represented acoustic lung images.

Methods: Recordings from 29 healthy volunteers were made on three separate occasions using vibration response imaging. Reproducibility was measured using quantitative, computerised assessment of vibration energy. Dynamically represented acoustic lung images were scored by six blinded raters.

Results: Quantitative measurement of acoustic recordings was highly reproducible with an intraclass correlation score of 0.86 (very good agreement). Intraclass correlations for inter-rater agreement and reproducibility were 0.61 (good agreement) and 0.86 (very good agreement), respectively. There was no significant difference found between the six raters at any time point. Raters ranged from 88% to 95% in their ability to identically evaluate the different features of the same image presented to them blinded on two separate occasions.

Conclusion: Acoustic lung imaging is reproducible in healthy individuals. Graphic representation of lung images can be interpreted with a high degree of accuracy by the same and by different reviewers.

Show MeSH
Inter-rater agreement in interpretation of acoustic lung images. Data based on the evaluation of images from all subjects at each of the three time points—a total of 87 images. MEF, maximum energy frame; VRI, vibration response imaging.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2571960&req=5

THX-63-06-0542-f05: Inter-rater agreement in interpretation of acoustic lung images. Data based on the evaluation of images from all subjects at each of the three time points—a total of 87 images. MEF, maximum energy frame; VRI, vibration response imaging.

Mentions: The averaged agreement, based on the 87 images from 29 subjects and three time points, was 82 (9)%. There was no significant difference found between the six raters at any of the time points (one way ANOVA, t test for paired data, p>0.05). The level of agreement varied according to the image feature evaluated (fig 5).Using a model of subject–rater for the averaged features, the ICC was 0.61 (good level of agreement).


Reproducibility of dynamically represented acoustic lung images from healthy individuals.

Maher TM, Gat M, Allen D, Devaraj A, Wells AU, Geddes DM - Thorax (2007)

Inter-rater agreement in interpretation of acoustic lung images. Data based on the evaluation of images from all subjects at each of the three time points—a total of 87 images. MEF, maximum energy frame; VRI, vibration response imaging.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2571960&req=5

THX-63-06-0542-f05: Inter-rater agreement in interpretation of acoustic lung images. Data based on the evaluation of images from all subjects at each of the three time points—a total of 87 images. MEF, maximum energy frame; VRI, vibration response imaging.
Mentions: The averaged agreement, based on the 87 images from 29 subjects and three time points, was 82 (9)%. There was no significant difference found between the six raters at any of the time points (one way ANOVA, t test for paired data, p>0.05). The level of agreement varied according to the image feature evaluated (fig 5).Using a model of subject–rater for the averaged features, the ICC was 0.61 (good level of agreement).

Bottom Line: There was no significant difference found between the six raters at any time point.Acoustic lung imaging is reproducible in healthy individuals.Graphic representation of lung images can be interpreted with a high degree of accuracy by the same and by different reviewers.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Respiratory Medicine, Interstitial Lung Disease Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney St, London SW3 6NP, UK. t.maher@ucl.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Background and aim: Acoustic lung imaging offers a unique method for visualising the lung. This study was designed to demonstrate reproducibility of acoustic lung images recorded from healthy individuals at different time points and to assess intra- and inter-rater agreement in the assessment of dynamically represented acoustic lung images.

Methods: Recordings from 29 healthy volunteers were made on three separate occasions using vibration response imaging. Reproducibility was measured using quantitative, computerised assessment of vibration energy. Dynamically represented acoustic lung images were scored by six blinded raters.

Results: Quantitative measurement of acoustic recordings was highly reproducible with an intraclass correlation score of 0.86 (very good agreement). Intraclass correlations for inter-rater agreement and reproducibility were 0.61 (good agreement) and 0.86 (very good agreement), respectively. There was no significant difference found between the six raters at any time point. Raters ranged from 88% to 95% in their ability to identically evaluate the different features of the same image presented to them blinded on two separate occasions.

Conclusion: Acoustic lung imaging is reproducible in healthy individuals. Graphic representation of lung images can be interpreted with a high degree of accuracy by the same and by different reviewers.

Show MeSH