Copyright
©2007 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Feb 28, 2007; 13(8): 1252-1256
Published online Feb 28, 2007. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i8.1252
Published online Feb 28, 2007. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i8.1252
Observer 1 | Observer 2 | |||
Imaging techniques | Az value | 95% CI | Az value | 95% CI |
MDCT | 0.983 | 0.950-1.013 | 0.99 | 0.968-1.012 |
MRI | 0.951 | 0.901-1.001 | 0.94 | 0.882-0.999 |
t value | -0.425 | -0.956 | ||
P value | 0.672 | 0.348 |
Sensitivity(%) | Positivepredictivevalue (%) | ||||
ImagingTechnique | ≤1 cm | > 1 cm ≤3 cm | Total | ||
SHCC | SHCC | SHCC | |||
n = 20 | n = 23 | n = 43 | n = 43 | ||
Observer | MDCT | 19 (95.0) | 22 (95.7) | 41 (95.31) | 97.6 |
1 | MRI | 17 (85.0) | 22 (95.72) | 39 (90.7) | 90.7 |
Observer | MDCT | 18 (90.0) | 21 (91.31) | 39 (90.79) | 97.5 |
2 | MRI | 14 (70.0) | 22 (95.7) | 36 (83.7) | 94.7 |
- Citation: Zhao H, Yao JL, Wang Y, Zhou KR. Detection of small hepatocellular carcinoma: Comparison of dynamic enhancement magnetic resonance imaging and multiphase multirow-detector helical CT scanning. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13(8): 1252-1256
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v13/i8/1252.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v13.i8.1252