Vista simple de metadatos

dc.contributorSpringeres_CL
dc.contributor.authorNavarro-Compan, V [Rheumatology Unit, La Paz University Hospital, P° de la Castellana Madrid, España]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorAliste, M. [Chile. Clínica Santa María]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorLinares, M.M. Alva [Perú. Hospital Edgardo Rebagliati Martins]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorAreny, R. [Chile. Universidad Mayor]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorAudisio, M. [Argentina. Hospital Nacional de Clínicas]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorBertoli, A.M. [Argentina. Instituto Reumatológico Strusberg]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorCazenave, T. [Argentina. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorCerón, C. [Colombia. Reumatoligya S.A.]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorDíaz, M. E. [Colombia. Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fé de Bogotá]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorGutiérrez, M. [Italia. Universitá Politecnica delle Marche]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorHernández, C. [México. Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación]es_CL
dc.contributor.authorNavarta, D. A. [Argentina. Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires]es_CL
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-07T13:04:09Z
dc.date.available2018-09-07T13:04:09Z
dc.date.issued2016es_CL
dc.identifier.citationVentura-Ríos, L., Navarro-Compan, V., Aliste, M., Linares, M. A., Areny, R., Audisio, M., ... & Gutiérrez, M. (2016). Is entheses ultrasound reliable? A reading Latin American exercise. Clinical rheumatology, 35(5), 1353-1357.es_CL
dc.identifier.issnISSN 0770-3198es_CL
dc.identifier.issnESSN 1434-9949es_CL
dc.identifier.urihttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10067-015-3007-x.pdfes_CL
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-015-3007-xes_CL
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.umayor.cl/xmlui/handle/sibum/2610
dc.description.abstractThe objective of this study is to evaluate inter-reader entheses ultrasound (US) reliability and the influence of the type of image or degree of sonographer experience on US reliability in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). Eighteen Latin American ultrasonographers with different experience took part in an US reading exercise evaluating 60 entheseal images (50 % static images and 50 % videos) from healthy controls and SpA patients. The following sonographic lesions were assessed: structure, thickness, bone proliferation/tendon calcification, erosions, bursitis, and Doppler signal. Another group of three experts with significant experience in entheses US read all images too. Inter-reader reliability among participants and experts was calculated by the Cohen's kappa coefficient. Thresholds for kappa values were <0.2 poor, 0.21-0.4 fair, 0.41-0.6 moderate, 0.61-0.8 good, and 0.81-1 excellent. Furthermore, the results for the expert group were stratified based on the type of image. Kappa correlation coefficients among participants, showed variability depending on the type of lesion, being fair for structure and thickness, moderate for calcifications, erosions, and bursitis, and excellent for Doppler signal. Inter-reader reliability among experts was higher, being moderate for structure and thickness, good for calcifications and bursitis, and excellent for erosions and Doppler. Inter-reader reliability for assessing calcification and structure using static images was significantly higher than for videos. Overall inter-reader reliability for assessing entheses by US in SpA is moderate to excellent for most of the lesions. However, special training seems fundamental to achieve better inter-reader reliability. Moreover, the type of image influenced these results, where evaluation of entheses by videos was more difficult than by static images.es_CL
dc.description.sponsorshipEste trabajo no contó con financiamiento.es_CL
dc.format.extentARTÍCULO ORIGINALes_CL
dc.language.isoenes_CL
dc.publisherCIENCIASes_CL
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chilees_CL
dc.subjectREUMATOLOGÍAes_CL
dc.titleIs entheses ultrasound reliable? A reading Latin American exercisees_CL
dc.typeArtículo o Paperes_CL
umayor.indizadorCOTes_CL
umayor.politicas.sherpa/romeoLicencia color: VERDE C/R (Se puede archivar el pre-print y el post-print o versión de editor/PDF, el autor no puede archivar la versión del editor/PDF)--Pre-print del autor: el autor puede archivar la versión pre-print (ie la versión previa a la revisión por pares) Post-print del autor: el autor puede archivar la versión post-print (ie la versión final posterior a la revisión por pares) Versión de editor/PDF: cross el autor no puede archivar la versión del editor/PDF. Condiciones generales: Author's pre-print on pre-print servers such as arXiv.org, Author's post-print on author's personal website immediately, Author's post-print on any open access repository after 12 months after publication, La versión de editor/PDF no puede utilizarse, La fuente editorial debe reconocerse, Debe ir enlazado a la versión de editor, Set phrase to accompany link to published version (see policy), Los artículos de algunas revistas pueden hacerse de acceso abierto mediante el pago de una tarifa adicional// Disponible en: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/0770-3198/es/es_CL
umayor.indexadoWOSes_CL
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10067-015-3007-xes_CL]
umayor.indicadores.wos-(cuartil)Q3es_CL
umayor.indicadores.scopus-(scimago-sjr)sin informaciónes_CL


Vista simple de metadatos



Modificado por: Sistema de Bibliotecas Universidad Mayor - SIBUM
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2018  DuraSpace