MRI evaluation from operators with different levels of expertise
Filippo Sornig1, Nicolò Giuseppe Sorrenti1, Dr. Luca Guarda Nardini2, Prof. Marco Ferrari1, Prof. Daniele Manfredini1, Dr. Matteo Val1
1 Università degli studi di Siena,
2 Ospedale Ca'Foncello Treviso
Objectives
The objective of this research study was to comparatively analyze the accuracy of image interpretation by a radiologist and five expert dentists in the interpretation of Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The study aimed to evaluate the extent of consistency in the interpretation of images by the two groups. The analysis focused on the efficiency of the radiologist's interpretation against the unbiased readings provided by the expert dentists.
Materials and Methods
An MRI scan was conducted prior to the initial visit of patients. All patients underwent MRI using the same 3 Tesla machine, and the images were analyzed by a single radiologist. Five dentists, who were experts in diagnosing and managing TMD, evaluated each MRI for the presence of disc position with open and close mouth, functional limitation, degenerative changes, effusion, and diagnosis. The observers were unaware of the evaluation given by the radiologist, and they did not participate in the patients' care at any point. None of the examiners had access to any other investigations (e.g., radiographs, arthrography) that the patient had undergone. Equivalence test and proportion test enables us to determine whether there is equivalence between the radiologist judgments and those of the 5 experts. Finally, was studied the level of agreement between the 5 dentists.
Results
Radiologist interpretations cannot be directly compared to those made by others with varying levels of expertise. Excluding the radiologist, the remaining experts had over 70% agreement, indicating a high level of consensus.
Conclusions
It is worth noting that the exclusion of the radiologist may have had an impact on the overall level of agreement, as their expertise could have contributed to a more diverse range of opinions. Nonetheless, based on the available data, we can conclude that the agreement among the remaining experts was quite substantial.