impact factor, citescore
logo
In press
In Press
Recent issue
Recent issue
Recent Supplement
Recent supplement
archives
Archives
articles free
Free to view
Search
Search
 

Diagnosis

 

Assessment of major salivary gland ultrasonography in Sjögren’s syndrome. A comparison between bedside and post-examination evaluations

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

 

  1. Broegelmann Research Laboratory, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, and Department of Rheumatology, Haukeland University Hospital, Norway. sten.daniel.hammenfors@helse-bergen.no
  2. Broegelmann Research Laboratory, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, and Department of Rheumatology, Haukeland University Hospital, Norway.
  3. Centre for Clinical Research, Haukeland University Hospital, Norway.
  4. Department of Rheumatology, Haukeland University Hospital, and Department of Clinical Science, Section for Rheumatology, University of Bergen, Norway.
  5. Broegelmann Research Laboratory, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, and Department of Rheumatology, Haukeland University Hospital, Norway.
  6. Broegelmann Research Laboratory, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, and Department of Clinical Dentistry, Section for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, University of Bergen, Norway.

CER12363
2019 Vol.37, N°3 ,Suppl.118
PI 0153, PF 0158
Diagnosis

Free to view
(click on article PDF icon to read the article)

PMID: 31464666 [PubMed]

Received: 24/04/2019
Accepted : 15/07/2019
In Press: 28/08/2019
Published: 28/08/2019

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:
Major salivary gland ultrasonography (SGUS) is a suitable diagnostic tool in Sjögren’s syndrome (SS). We aimed to determine the more representative gland, projection and format most applicable for reproducible image analysis.
METHODS:
One investigator performed SGUS in patients with SS. Parotid and submandibular glands were examined in longitudinal and transverse planes and evaluated bedside using a simplified scoring system (0-3). Longitudinal and transverse images and videos of all glands were stored and later evaluated/graded by three investigators, at two time-points. Agreement was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS:
The ICC for static image and video scoring compared to bedside evaluation ranged from 0.131 to 0.882. Average ICC for longitudinal/transverse image was 0.667/0.662, and 0.683/0.510 for longitudinal/transverse video. Interobserver reliability was good to excellent (0.81–0.94). Intraobserver reliability scores ranged from fair to excellent (0.46–0.96). The correlation between image and video evaluations of all modalities and examiners was good to excellent (0.614-0.904). The best mean ICC was found for the longitudinal projection of the left parotid gland (0.861) and the lowest mean ICC was for the transverse projection of the left submandibular gland (0.66).
CONCLUSIONS:
Our study indicates a trend favouring longitudinal video of the parotid gland as preferred projection, gland and storage format.

Rheumatology Article