JUM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Delisle, M. F.
Right arrow Articles by Boulvain, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Delisle, M. F.
Right arrow Articles by Boulvain, M.

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol 17, Issue 8 481-484, Copyright © 1998 by American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Measurement of endometrial thickness with transvaginal ultrasonography: is it reproducible?

M. F. Delisle, M. Villeneuve and M. Boulvain
BC Women's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada.

To assess the intraobserver and interobserver variability of transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement of endometrial thickness, two investigators (M.V., M.-F. D.) independently evaluated two successive measurements in 55 patients with a 5.0 MHz transvaginal transducer. Each observer was blinded to his or her own and to the other's results. Measurements were taken at the maximal thickness in the longitudinal uterine axis. The intraclass coefficients evaluating the agreement between two measures of a same observer were 94% and 97%; the coefficient was 94% between the two investigators. Intraobserver kappa values (agreement on endometrium < or = 5 mm and > 5 mm) were 0.70 and 0.81, respectively; the interobserver kappa value was 0.74. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of endometrial thickness has excellent intraobserver and good interobserver agreement. However, in clinical practice, an endometrial thickness measuring +/- 1 mm of a cut-off value should be interpreted with caution, especially when this may modify the clinical management.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
J. L. Alcazar, S. Ajossa, S. Floris, R. Bargellini, M. Gerada, and S. Guerriero
Reproducibility of Endometrial Vascular Patterns in Endometrial Disease as Assessed by Transvaginal Power Doppler Sonography in Women With Postmenopausal Bleeding
J. Ultrasound Med., February 1, 2006; 25(2): 159 - 163.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
A. S.Y. Sit, F. Modugno, L. M. Hill, J. Martin, and J. L. Weissfeld
Transvaginal Ultrasound Measurement of Endometrial Thickness as a Biomarker for Estrogen Exposure
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., September 1, 2004; 13(9): 1459 - 1465.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. Dueholm, E. Lundorf, J. S. Sorensen, S. Ledertoug, F. Olesen, and H. Laursen
Reproducibility of evaluation of the uterus by transvaginal sonography, hysterosonographic examination, hysteroscopy and magnetic resonance imaging
Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2002; 17(1): 195 - 200.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. A. Bredella, V. A. Feldstein, R. A. Filly, R. B. Goldstein, P. W. Callen, and H. K. Genant
Measurement of Endometrial Thickness at US in Multicenter Drug Trials: Value of Central Quality Assurance Reading
Radiology, November 1, 2000; 217(2): 516 - 520.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.