Reproducibility of dynamic MR imaging pelvic measurements: a multi-institutional study.

PURPOSE To assess the reproducibility of bone and soft-tissue pelvimetry measurements obtained from dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies in primiparous women across multiple centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS All subjects prospectively gave consent for participation in this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study. At six clinical sites, standardized dynamic pelvic 1.5-T multiplanar T2-weighted MR imaging was performed in three groups of primiparous women at 6-12 months after birth: Group 1, vaginal delivery with anal sphincter tear (n = 93); group 2, vaginal delivery without anal sphincter tear (n = 79); and group 3, cesarean delivery without labor (n = 26). After standardized central training, blinded readers at separate clinical sites and a blinded expert central reader measured nine bone and 10 soft-tissue pelvimetry parameters. Subsequently, three readers underwent additional standardized training, and reread 20 MR imaging studies. Measurement variability was assessed by using intraclass correlation for agreement between the clinical site and central readers. Acceptable agreement was defined as an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of at least 0.7. RESULTS There was acceptable agreement (ICC range, 0.71-0.93) for eight of 19 MR imaging parameters at initial readings of 198 subjects. The remaining parameters had an ICC range of 0.13-0.66. Additional training reduced measurement variability: Twelve of 19 parameters had acceptable agreement (ICC range, 0.70-0.92). Correlations were greater for bone (ICC, >or=0.70 in five [initial readings] and eight of nine [rereadings] variables) than for soft-tissue measurements (ICC, >or=0.70 in three [initial readings] of 10 and four [rereadings] of 10 readings, respectively). CONCLUSION Despite standardized central training, there is high variability of pelvic MR imaging measurements among readers, particularly for soft-tissue structures. Although slightly improved with additional training, measurement variability adversely affects the utility of many MR imaging measurements for multicenter pelvic floor disorder research.

[1]  F. Kelvin,et al.  Female pelvic organ prolapse: a comparison of triphasic dynamic MR imaging and triphasic fluoroscopic cystocolpoproctography. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  J. V. van Engelshoven,et al.  Measurement of anal sphincter muscles: endoanal US, endoanal MR imaging, or phased-array MR imaging? A study with healthy volunteers. , 2001, Radiology.

[3]  S. Riederer,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Anatomic and Dynamic Defects of the Pelvic Floor in Defecatory Disorders , 2003, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[4]  Morton B. Brown,et al.  Fecal and Urinary Incontinence in Primiparous Women , 2006, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  L. V. Hoe,et al.  Pelvic floor descent in females: Comparative study of colpocystodefecography and dynamic fast MR imaging , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[6]  Geert L. Morren,et al.  Triphasic MRI of pelvic organ descent: sources of measurement error. , 2005, European journal of radiology.

[7]  D. Weishaupt,et al.  MR defecography in patients with fecal incontinence: imaging findings and their effect on surgical management. , 2006, Radiology.

[8]  R. de Vos,et al.  Prospective assessment of interobserver agreement for defecography in fecal incontinence. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  John T. Wei,et al.  Endoanal Ultrasound Findings and Fecal Incontinence Symptoms in Women With and Without Recognized Anal Sphincter Tears , 2006, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  Borut Marincek,et al.  Obstetric MR pelvimetry: reference values and evaluation of inter- and intraobserver error and intraindividual variability. , 2003, Radiology.

[11]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  MRI in evaluating atrophy of the external anal sphincter in patients with fecal incontinence. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Anal sphincter defects in patients with fecal incontinence: endoanal versus external phased-array MR imaging. , 2005, Radiology.

[13]  B. Everitt,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .

[14]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[16]  K. Guire,et al.  Interrater reliability of assessing levator ani muscle defects with magnetic resonance images , 2006, International Urogynecology Journal.

[17]  Lizann Bolinger,et al.  Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: the relationship with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse quantification staging system. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[18]  S Halligan,et al.  Patterns of prolapse in women with symptoms of pelvic floor weakness: assessment with MR imaging. , 1997, Radiology.

[19]  Marianna Jakab,et al.  Three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging assessment of levator ani morphologic features in different grades of prolapse. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  W. Grove.  Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd ed , 1981 .

[21]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .