RESUMO
PURPOSE: To describe a Delphi consensus for the realization of a structured radiology request form for patients undergoing musculoskeletal imaging. METHODS: A steering committee (four radiologists, a rheumatologist and an orthopedic surgeon) proposed a form to an expert panel (30 members, ten radiologists, ten rheumatologists and ten orthopedic surgeons). Through an online survey, the panelists voted on their level of agreement with the statements of the form using a 10-point Likert scale (1: no agreement; 10: total agreement) in a three-round process. A combination of two distinct criteria, a mean agreement level ≥ 8 and a percentage of at least 75% of responses with a value ≥ 8, was deemed as acceptable. RESULTS: The form achieved high median ratings in all the assessed key features. During the first round, all items met the threshold to be advanced as unmodified in the next round. Additional proposed items were considered and introduced in the next round (six items in Section 1, five items in Section 2, ten items in Section 3, 11 items in Section 4, six items in Section 5, eight items in Section 6, ten items in Section 7 and eight items in Section 8). Of these items, in round 3, only six reached the threshold to be integrated into the final form. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a structured radiology request form can improve appropriateness and collaboration between clinicians and radiologists in musculoskeletal imaging.
Assuntos
Reumatologia , Traumatologia , Humanos , Radiologia Intervencionista , Técnica Delphi , ItáliaRESUMO
Abstract Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of quantifying visceral adipose tissue (VAT) on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, using freeware, as well as calculating intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility. Materials and Methods: We quantified VAT in patients who underwent abdominal CT and MRI at our institution between 2010 and 2015, with a maximum of three months between the two examinations. A slice acquired at the level of the umbilicus was selected. Segmentation was performed with the region growing algorithm of the freeware employed. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility were evaluated, as was the accuracy of MRI in relation to that of CT. Results: Thirty-one patients (14 males and 17 females; mean age of 57 ± 15 years) underwent CT and MRI (mean interval between the examinations, 28 ± 12 days). The interobserver reproducibility was 82% for CT (bias = 1.52 cm2; p = 0.488), 86% for T1-weighted MRI (bias = −4.36 cm2; p = 0.006), and 88% for T2-weighted MRI (bias = −0.52 cm2; p = 0.735). The intraobserver reproducibility was 90% for CT (bias = 0.14 cm2; p = 0.912), 92% for T1-weighted MRI (bias = −3,4 cm2; p = 0.035), and 90% for T2-weighted MRI (bias = −0.30 cm2; p = 0.887). The reproducibility between T1-weighted MRI and T2-weighted MRI was 87% (bias = −0.11 cm2; p = 0.957). In comparison with the accuracy of CT, that of T1-weighted and T2-weighted MRI was 89% and 91%, respectively. Conclusion: The program employed can be used in order to quantify VAT on CT, T1-weighted MRI, and T2-weighted MRI scans. Overall, the accuracy of MRI (in comparison with that of CT) appears to be high, as do intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility. However, the quantification of VAT seems to be less reproducible in T1-weighted sequences.
Resumo Objetivo: Avaliar a viabilidade da quantificação do tecido adiposo visceral (TAV) pela tomografia computadorizada (TC) e ressonância magnética (RM) usando um software freeware, e também calcular a reprodutibilidade intraobservador e interobservador. Materiais e Métodos: Foi quantificado o TAV em pacientes submetidos a TC e RM de abdome em nossa instituição, entre 2010 e 2015, com um intervalo máximo de três meses entre os dois exames. Selecionou-se um corte adquirido ao nível da cicatriz umbilical. A segmentação foi realizada com o algoritmo de crescimento de região do freeware utilizado. As reprodutibilidades intraobservador e interobservador foram avaliadas, assim como a acurácia da RM em relação à TC. Resultados: Trinta e um pacientes (14 homens e 17 mulheres; média de idade: 57 ± 15 anos) realizaram TC e RM (intervalo médio entre os exames: 28 ± 12 dias). A reprodutibilidade interobservador foi 82% para TC (viés = 1,52 cm2; p = 0,488), 86% para RM ponderada em T1 (viés = −4,36 cm2; p = 0,006) e 88% para RM ponderada em T2 (viés = −0,52 cm2; p = 0,735). A reprodutibilidade intraobservador foi 90% para TC (viés = 0,14 cm2; p = 0,912), 92% para RM ponderada em T1 (viés = −3,4 cm2; p = 0,035) e 90% para RM ponderada em T2 (viés = −0,30 cm2, p = 0,887). A reprodutibilidade entre a RM ponderada em T1 e a RM ponderada em T2 foi 87% (viés = −0,11 cm2; p = 0,957). Em comparação com a TC, a acurácia da RM ponderada em T1 e T2 foi 89% e 91%, respectivamente. Conclusão: O programa utilizado pode ser usado para quantificar o TAV na TC, na RM ponderada em T1 e na RM ponderada em T2. No geral, a acurácia da RM (em comparação com a TC) parece ser alta, assim como a reprodutibilidade intraobservador e interobservador. No entanto, a quantificação do TAV parece ser menos reprodutível nas sequências ponderadas em T1.