Clinical application of multidetector computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of cranial nerves in horses in comparison with high resolution imaging standards

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (7) ◽  
pp. 376-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Dixon ◽  
R. Lam ◽  
R. Weller ◽  
G. Manso-Díaz ◽  
M. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
High Resolution ◽  
Multidetector Computed Tomography ◽  
Clinical Application ◽  
Cranial Nerves ◽  
High Resolution Imaging ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Resolution Imaging

Potentials of high resolution magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography for preoperative local staging of colon cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 54 (7) ◽  
pp. 722-730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Rollvén ◽  
Torbjorn Holm ◽  
Bengt Glimelius ◽  
Esther Lörinc ◽  
Lennart Blomqvist
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
High Resolution ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Local Staging

Is multidetector computed tomography comparable to magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of lumbar foraminal stenosis?

2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-203
Author(s):  
Woo Young Kang ◽  
Joong Mo Ahn ◽  
Joon Woo Lee ◽  
Eugene Lee ◽  
Yun Jung Bae ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Multidetector Computed Tomography ◽  
Excellent Agreement ◽  
Observer Agreement ◽  
Kappa Statistics ◽  
Foraminal Stenosis ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis

Background Both multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are used for assessment of lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS). Therefore, it is relevant to assess agreement between these imaging modalities. Purpose To determine intermodality, inter-, and intra-observer agreement for assessment of LFS on MDCT and MRI. Material and Methods A total of 120 foramina in 20 patients who visited our institution in January and February 2014 were evaluated by six radiologists with different levels of experience. Radiologists evaluated presence and severity of LFS on sagittal CT and MR images according to a previously published LFS grading system. Intermodality agreement was analyzed by using weighted kappa statistics, while inter- and intra-observer agreement were analyzed by using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and kappa statistics. Results Overall intermodality agreement was moderate to good (kappa, 0.478–0.765). In particular, two professors and one fellow tended to overestimate the degree of LFS on CT compared with MRI. For inter-observer agreement of all six observers, ICCs indicated excellent agreement for both CT (0.774) and MRI (0.771), while Fleiss’ kappa values showed moderate agreement for CT (0.482) and MRI (0.575). There was better agreement between professors and fellows compared with residents. For intra-observer agreement, ICCs indicated excellent agreement, while kappa values showed good to excellent agreement for both CT and MRI. Conclusion MDCT was comparable to MRI for diagnosis and assessment of LFS, especially for experienced observers. However, there was a tendency to overestimate the degree of LFS on MDCT compared with MRI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document