A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Diagnostic performance of virtual gastroscopy using MDCT in early gastric cancer compared with 2D axial CT: focusing on interobserver variation. | LitMetric

Objective: The objective of our study was to assess the diagnostic performance of virtual gastroscopy using MDCT for the detection of early gastric cancer (EGC) compared with 2D axial CT, focusing on interobserver reliability.

Materials And Methods: During an 11-month period, we performed CT examinations of 94 consecutive patients with EGC and a control group composed of 68 patients without EGC. Three radiologists retrospectively interpreted the 2D axial CT and virtual gastroscopy images. Diagnostic performances were compared within each observer using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (A(z)). Sensitivity and specificity were also calculated for each individual observer. The simple kappa statistic was used to evaluate interobserver reliability in the detection of EGC.

Results: The diagnostic performance for overall lesion detection in patients with EGC was significantly higher with virtual gastroscopy (A(z) = 0.829-0.885) than with 2D axial CT (A(z) = 0.734-0.793) (p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of virtual gastroscopy for EGC were 78.7-84.0% and 83.8-91.2%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of 2D axial CT for EGC were 62.8-69.2% and 83.8-92.7%, respectively. Virtual gastroscopy showed a higher sensitivity for EGC than 2D axial CT (p < 0.001). The interobserver reliabilities showed moderate to substantial agreement (kappa = 0.40-0.74 for 2D axial CT, kappa = 0.57-0.71 for virtual gastroscopy).

Conclusion: Virtual gastroscopy showed excellent results with a good interobserver reliability for the detection of EGC compared with 2D axial CT.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2201DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

virtual gastroscopy
28
diagnostic performance
12
compared axial
12
patients egc
12
sensitivity specificity
12
virtual
8
performance virtual
8
gastroscopy mdct
8
early gastric
8
gastric cancer
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!