JUM Parker Laboratories, Inc
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Moawad, N. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lazebnik, N.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Moawad, N. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lazebnik, N.
© 2009 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine
J Ultrasound Med 28:1281-1288 • 0278-4297

Comparison of 3- and 2-Dimensional Sonographic Techniques for Counting Ovarian Follicles

Nashat S. Moawad, MD, Heidi Gibbons, MS, James Liu, MD and Noam Lazebnik, MD

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio USA.

Address correspondence to Noam Lazebnik, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, MacDonald Women’s Hospital, 11100 Euclid Ave, Mac 5034, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA. E-mail: noam.lazebnik{at}uhhospitals.org

Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare 3-dimensional (3D) and 2-dimensional (2D) ovarian follicle counts and 3D counts using stored volumes between experienced and inexperienced operators. Methods. Follicles larger than 5 mm were counted on 1 randomly selected ovary. Two-dimensional follicle counts were compared with stored 3D volumes by the same experienced operator (registered diagnostic medical sonographer [RDMS]). Counts using 3D stored data were compared between the experienced operator and inexperienced operator (principal investigator [PI]). The mean difference in follicle counts was computed, and a 1-sample Student t test was performed to test the hypothesis that the mean of the differences was 0. Comparison of the 2 methods and observers by Bland-Altman plots was used to determine any systematic differences based on the total number of follicles per selected ovary. Results. Mean differences differed from 0 (P < .005) for all 3 comparisons: 2D RDMS versus 3D RDMS, 2D RDMS versus 3D PI, and 3D RDMS versus 3D PI. For the comparison of 2D versus 3D counts done by the RDMS, 5 ovaries (10%) had a difference of more than 5 follicles counted; for the 2D RDMS versus 3D PI, 11 ovaries (22%) had a difference of more than 5 follicles; for the 3D RDMS versus 3D PI, 8 ovaries (16%) had a difference of more than 5 follicles. Mean differences in counts ranged 0.29 to 1.04 for ovaries with 10 or fewer follicles compared with 3.94 to 9.00 for ovaries with more than 10 follicles. Conclusions. Follicle counts using 3D volumes were similar to 2D counts, and 3D follicle counts done by an inexperienced operator were similar to counts done by an experienced sonographer.

Key Words: ovarian follicle counts • 3-dimensional sonography • 2-dimensional sonography

Abbreviations: LOA, limits of agreement • PI, principal investigator • RDMS, registered diagnostic medical sonographer • 3D, 3-dimensional • 2D, 2-dimensional

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.