Skip to main content
. 2021 Aug 5;32(2):1144–1153. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08211-2

Table 3.

Inter-method volumes’ concordance

Pairs Pearson’ rho Rho_c C_b Mean difference 95% LOA
All patients (N = 142)
Core volume
Method A versus B 0.97 0.96 0.99 3.6 ± 10.0 −16.0 to 23.1
Method A versus C 0.90 0.82 0.91 −14.1 ± 24.5 −62.2 to 34.0
Method B versus C 0.94 0.80 0.86 −18.1 ± 23.7 −64.5 to 28.2
Hypoperfusion volume
Method A versus B 0.74 0.62 0.85 41.8 ± 80.5 −115.9 to 199.6
Method A versus C 0.38 0.27 0.69 75.8 ± 113.4 −146.5 to 298.2
Method B versus C 0.56 0.51 0.91 33.4 ± 71.7 −107.1 to 174.0
Early EVT (N = 67)
Core volume
Method A versus B 0.97 0.96 0.99 3.4 ± 8.9 −14.2 to 20.9
Method A versus C 0.88 0.81 0.92 −11.8 ± 22.9 −56.8 to 33.1
Method B versus C 0.92 0.79 0.87 −15.2 ± 21.5 −57.2 to 26.8
Hypoperfusion volume
Method A versus B 0.69 0.54 0.79 45.6 ± 89.7 −130.2 to 221.4
Method A versus C 0.37 0.21 0.57 83.8 ± 115.0 −141.5 to 309.2
Method B versus C 0.59 0.50 0.84 38.2 ± 60.0 −79.4 to 155.9
Late EVT (N = 46)
Core volume
Method A versus B 0.97 0.96 0.99 3.0 ± 6.5 −9.8 to 15.8
Method A versus C 0.93 0.74 0.80 −15.2 ± 22.5 −59.3 to 28.8
Method B versus C 0.94 0.70 0.75 −18.2 ± 23.2 −63.7 to 27.2
Hypoperfusion volume
Method A versus B 0.88 0.79 0.90 33.0 ± 52.4 −69.6 to 135.7
Method A versus C 0.51 0.40 0.78 60.8 ± 94.6 −124.6 to 246.2
Method B versus C 0.63 0.60 0.94 27.8 ± 67.0 −103.5 to 159.0

EVT endovascular thrombectomy, LOA limits-of-agreement