We have located links that may give you full text access.
"Rounding" the Size of Pulmonary Nodules: Impact of Rounding Methods on Nodule Management, as Defined by the 2017 Fleischner Society Guidelines.
Academic Radiology 2017 November
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to quantify the impact of different rounding methods on size measurements of pulmonary nodules and to determine the number of nodules that change management categories as a result of rounding.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective institutional review board-approved study, we included 503 incidental pulmonary nodules (308 solid and 195 subsolid) from a data repository. Long and short axes were measured. Average diameters were calculated using four different rounding methods (method 1: no rounding; method 2: rounding only the average diameter to the closest millimeter; method 3: rounding only short and long axes; and method 4: rounding short and long axes and the average diameter to the closest millimeter). Nodules were classified for each rounding method according to the 2017 Fleischner Society guideline management categories. Measurements were compared among the four rounding methods using analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Without rounding, the average nodule diameter was 15.67 ± 5.97 mm. This increased between 0.03 and 0.29 mm using rounding methods 2-4 (range: P < 0.001-0.017). The nodule size was more frequently rounded up (range: 52.1%-77.5%) than rounded down (range: 17.7%-42.5%) using rounding methods 2-4, as compared to no rounding. In the 308 solid nodules, up to 2.9% of the nodules changed management category, whereas none of the 195 subsolid nodules changed category.
CONCLUSIONS: Rounding methods have a small absolute but statically significant effect on nodule size, impacting management category in less than 3% of the nodules. This suggests that, in clinical practice, any rounding method can be used for determining nodule size without substantially biasing individual nodules toward given management categories.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective institutional review board-approved study, we included 503 incidental pulmonary nodules (308 solid and 195 subsolid) from a data repository. Long and short axes were measured. Average diameters were calculated using four different rounding methods (method 1: no rounding; method 2: rounding only the average diameter to the closest millimeter; method 3: rounding only short and long axes; and method 4: rounding short and long axes and the average diameter to the closest millimeter). Nodules were classified for each rounding method according to the 2017 Fleischner Society guideline management categories. Measurements were compared among the four rounding methods using analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Without rounding, the average nodule diameter was 15.67 ± 5.97 mm. This increased between 0.03 and 0.29 mm using rounding methods 2-4 (range: P < 0.001-0.017). The nodule size was more frequently rounded up (range: 52.1%-77.5%) than rounded down (range: 17.7%-42.5%) using rounding methods 2-4, as compared to no rounding. In the 308 solid nodules, up to 2.9% of the nodules changed management category, whereas none of the 195 subsolid nodules changed category.
CONCLUSIONS: Rounding methods have a small absolute but statically significant effect on nodule size, impacting management category in less than 3% of the nodules. This suggests that, in clinical practice, any rounding method can be used for determining nodule size without substantially biasing individual nodules toward given management categories.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app