2009
DOI: 10.1016/s1567-5688(09)71742-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

IA 004 A Comparison of Automated and Manual Measurements of Intima-media Thickness in Clinical Practice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although manual and semi-automated techniques correlate well in adults, 17,37,38 our results are in keeping with Mac Ananey et al 17 who found variability between the 2 techniques. In their study of 126 healthy adults, with a Pearson correlation of 0.8 but an ICC of 0.74 between the 2 techniques, manual IMT overestimated the measurements with respect to the semi-automated technique, while the latter was more reproducible.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Although manual and semi-automated techniques correlate well in adults, 17,37,38 our results are in keeping with Mac Ananey et al 17 who found variability between the 2 techniques. In their study of 126 healthy adults, with a Pearson correlation of 0.8 but an ICC of 0.74 between the 2 techniques, manual IMT overestimated the measurements with respect to the semi-automated technique, while the latter was more reproducible.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Manual measurement of cIMT could be the source of variability between the two imaging modes and the use of an automated computerized analysis reduces the variability in measuring cIMT and is a preferable method for cIMT assessment [3,14]. However, it is worth mentioning that in clinical practice a manual measurement of cIMT is usually performed for being faster and more feasible in practice and might be available in centers due to lack of funding.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In adults, multiple studies have shown that automatic measurements usually have better reproducibility and lower variability compared to manual measurements, as it is illustrated in our study with a low coefficient of variation (3.93%) for the semi-automatic B-mode technique. 28,29 Dogan et al 30 found a poor correlation between manual and automated techniques. In fact, the precision of a manual system on a radiological screen for one pixel is of .2 mm, therefore, for a 10 mm segment, accuracy is of 9%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%