English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

To determine the variability in CT measurements of proximal thoracic aortic diameters obtained using double-oblique short axis and semiautomatic centerline analysis techniques. Institutional review board approval, with waiver of informed consent, was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study. Cardiac gated thoracic aortic CT scans were evaluated in 25 patients. Maximum aortic diameter measurements at the annulus, sinuses, sinotubular junction and ascending aorta were generated using double-oblique short axis and semiautomatic centerline analysis techniques. Intraobserver and interobserver variability and variability between techniques were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, Spearman's correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. Mean intraobserver diameter differences using double oblique views ranged from -0.3 to 0.6 mm. The 95 % confidence interval for difference in diameters was ±2.4 to ±5.1 mm for radiologist #1 and ±2.6 to ±5.2 mm for radiologist #2, depending on location. Mean intraobserver diameter differences using centerline analysis ranged from 0.2 to 2.3 mm, and the 95 % confidence interval for difference in diameters was ±2.0 to ±4.6 mm, depending on location. Significant interobserver differences were seen for both double oblique views and centerline analysis. Measurements obtained using the two methods were strongly correlated (r = 0.81-0.99), although they were consistently larger using centerline analysis (95 % confidence interval, ±1.8 to ±3.2 mm). Although measurement variability of the proximal thoracic aorta was generally low using double oblique and centerline analysis techniques, differences of up to approximately 5 mm in diameter occurred within the 95 % confidence interval. Neither technique was clearly more reliable than the other.

Proximal thoracic aortic diameter measurements at CT: repeatability and reproducibility according to measurement method