Table 4.
Agreement coefficient between real-time ultrasound and offline analysis: detailed analysis of diagnostic criteria in grayscale ultrasound, PD and GIS †
| Parameter | ka (95% confidence interval) |
|---|---|
| Grayscale ultrasound | |
| ET | 0.90 (0.78–0.90) |
| Iintrupted endomyometrial junction | 0.80 (0.75–0.83) |
| Non-intact endomyometrial junction | 0.76 (0.75–0.81) |
| GIS | |
| ET | 0.82 (0.79–0.88) |
| Iintrupted endomyometrial junction | 0.79 (0.72–0.82) 11 |
| Non-intact endomyometrial junction | 0.80 (0.79–0.86) |
| PD (vascular pattern) | |
| Scattered vessels | 0.81 (0.79–0.83) |
| Areas with densely packed or color-splash vessels | 0.88 (0.80–0.89) |
GIS, gel infusion sonography; PD, power Doppler.
a
κ value of 0.81–1.00 indicate excellent agreement, a k-value of 0.61–0.80 indicate good agreement; a k-value of 0.41–0.60 indicate moderate agreement; a k-value of 0.21–0.40 indicates fair agreement; a k-value of < 0.20 indicates poor agreement.
b
Poor quality videos were seen in (5.9%, 9/152) at offline analysis and were excluded from the final anlysis