Castro, M. (Maite)

Filtering

20211

Settings

Author search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.c493219c-af7f-4dbb-8fbd-57af6a664d0a

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Diagnosing septate uterus using three-dimensional ultrasound using three different classifications: an interobserver and intraobserver agreement study
    (Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, 2021) Peixoto, C. (Carla); Castro, M. (Maite); Carriles-Rivero, I.M. (Isabel María); Arriba, M. (María) de; Lapresa, V. (Victoria); Alcazar, J.L. (Juan Luis)
    Objective: Currently, there are up to three different classifications for diagnosing septate uterus. The interobserver agreement among them has been poorly assessed. Objective: To assess the interobserver agreement of nonexpert sonographers for classifying septate uterus using the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE/ESGE), American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), and Congenital Uterine Malformations by Experts (CUME) classifications. Methods: A total of 50 three-dimensional (3D) volumes of a nonconsecutive series of women with suspected uterine malformation were used. Two nonexpert examiners evaluated a single 3D volume of the uterus of each woman, blinded to each other. The following measurements were performed: indentation depth, indentation angle, uterine fundal wall thickness, external fundal indentation, and indentation-to-wall-thickness (I:WT) ratio. Each observer had to assign a diagnosis in each case, according to the three classification systems (ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM, and CUME). The interobserver agreement regarding the ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM, and CUME classifications was assessed using the Cohen weighted kappa index (k). Agreement regarding the three classifications (ASRM versus ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM versus CUME, ESHRE/ESGE versus CUME) was also assessed. Results: The interobserver agreement between the 2 nonexpert examiners was good for the ESHRE/ESGE (k = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.92) and very good for the ASRM and CUME classification systems (k = 0.95; 95%CI: 0.86-1.00; and k = 0.91; 95%CI: 0.79-1.00, respectively). Agreement between the ESHRE/ESGE and ASRM classifications was moderate for both examiners. Agreement between the ESHRE/ESGE and CUME classifications was moderate for examiner 1 and good for examiner 2. Agreement between the ASRM and CUME classifications was good for both examiners. Conclusion: The three classifications have good (ESHRE/ESGE) or very good (ASRM and CUME) interobserver agreement. Agreement between the ASRM and CUME classifications was higher than that for the ESHRE/ESGE and ASRM and ESHRE/ESGE and CUME classifications.