HİSTEROSALPİNGOGRAM DEĞERLENDİRMEDE RADYOLOG VE JİNEKOLOGLAR ARASINDAKİ GÖZLEMCİLER ARASI DEĞİŞİKLİK
[ N/A ]
Tarih
2016
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
: Histerosalpingografi filmlerinin doğru okunması hastaların yönetimi için önemlidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı radyologlarla HSG klinisyenlerin HSG yorumlamalarını karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Yaşları 35-43 arasında, kendi uzmanlık dallarında 5 yılını doldurmuş 2 klinisyen ve 2 radyolog 116 adet HSG filmini değerlendirdi. HSG filmleri bilgisayar monitöründen görüntülenerek gözlemcilere çeşitli sorulardan oluşan standart bir soru formuna göre uterin ve tubal hastalıları filmleri değerlendirmeleri istendi. Filmleri okuyan her bir gözlemcinin tutarlılığı, spesifik anormallikleri belirleyebilmedeki güvenilirliği ve klinisyenlerle radyologların kendi aralarındaki tutarlılıkları değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Uterin kavite, uterin deviasyon ve dolma defekti konusunda gözlemcilerin tutarlılığı istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede birbirinden farklı bulundu (p<0.05). Uterin anomalilerin değerlendirmesinde radyologlar ve klinisyenler arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanmadı (p>0.05). Grupların hidrosalpinks yorumları her ne kadar benzer bulunsa da, bilateral tubal kontrast madde geçişi konusunda radyologlar ve klinisyenler arasında arasında fark bulundu (p<0.05). Sonuç: Jinekologlar arasındaki gözlemciler arası değişkenlik radyologlar arasındakinden daha fazlaydı. Fakat hem klinisyenler hem de radyologlar kendi içlerinde birbirleriyle uyumluydular. Radyologlar arası uyum klinisyenler arasındakinden daha yüksekti. HSG raporlarındaki değişkenliği doğrulamak ve "infertil kadınların HSG filmlerini kim okumalı?" sorusuna cevap bulmak için daha iyi planlanmış çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır.
Reading of hysterosalpingography (HSG) films is important for management of patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare HSG interpretation of radiologists and clinicians. Material and Methods: Two clinicians and 2 radiologists, who were 35-43 years old and were fulfilled 5 years in their speciality, evaluated 116 hysterosalpingograms. HSG pictures were viewed at computer monitor and the observers were asked to evaluate them within a standard framework consisted of several questions for diagnosis of uterine and tubal disease. The consistency of each individual reader, the reliability of detecting specific abnormalities, and the consistency of clinicians compared with radiologists was measured. Results: There were statistically significant differences in the consistency of interpretations for contour of uterine cavity, uterine deviation, and uterine filling defect (p<0.05). Evaluation of uterine anomalies with HSG were similar between clinicians and radiologists (p>0.05). Although ratios of hydrosalphinx were similar between clinicians and radiologists (p>0.05), there were differences for the evaluation of bilateral tubal contrast falling (p<0.05). Conclusion: Gynecologists have more inter-observer variability than radiologists in hysterosalpingography evaluation. However, both clinicians and radiologists were compatible within themselves. Compatibility of radiologists was higher than that of clinicians. Better designed studies are needed in order to confirm the variability of HSG reports and to answer the question of “who should read HSGs of infertile women?”.
Reading of hysterosalpingography (HSG) films is important for management of patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare HSG interpretation of radiologists and clinicians. Material and Methods: Two clinicians and 2 radiologists, who were 35-43 years old and were fulfilled 5 years in their speciality, evaluated 116 hysterosalpingograms. HSG pictures were viewed at computer monitor and the observers were asked to evaluate them within a standard framework consisted of several questions for diagnosis of uterine and tubal disease. The consistency of each individual reader, the reliability of detecting specific abnormalities, and the consistency of clinicians compared with radiologists was measured. Results: There were statistically significant differences in the consistency of interpretations for contour of uterine cavity, uterine deviation, and uterine filling defect (p<0.05). Evaluation of uterine anomalies with HSG were similar between clinicians and radiologists (p>0.05). Although ratios of hydrosalphinx were similar between clinicians and radiologists (p>0.05), there were differences for the evaluation of bilateral tubal contrast falling (p<0.05). Conclusion: Gynecologists have more inter-observer variability than radiologists in hysterosalpingography evaluation. However, both clinicians and radiologists were compatible within themselves. Compatibility of radiologists was higher than that of clinicians. Better designed studies are needed in order to confirm the variability of HSG reports and to answer the question of “who should read HSGs of infertile women?”.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Cerrahi
Kaynak
Türkiye Klinikleri Jinekoloji Obstetrik Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
26
Sayı
1
