The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Observer variability in echo-Doppler measurements of portal flow in cirrhotic patients and normal volunteers
Open accessAbstract
The intraobserver and interobserver variability in measuring the portal vein flow by the echo-Doppler technique was evaluated in a blind controlled study. A total of 22 cirrhotic patients and 14 normal volunteers were examined by two skilled operators using duplex Doppler within a period of 1-3 mo (6 cirrhotics and 7 normal volunteers by both observers). Area, mean velocity, and flow were measured (4 measurements: A, B on day 1; C, D on day 2). The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess both the statistical and clinical significance of intraobserver and interobserver agreement for the measurements of these three parameters. The level of intraobserver agreement for each parameter on normal subjects and cirrhotics was obtained from the two measurements on the same day and from the two measurements at the same time on consecutive days. Overall agreement between the four measurements was also calculated. Levels of interobserver agreement were obtained by calculating separately the intraclass correlation coefficient from each of the four pairs by measurements made on the same subject by the two observers over the same period of 2 days. The coefficient of variation was also used to compare the variability in these measurements. Overall, intraobserver agreement on normal subjects varied from good to excellent for observer 1, and from fair to good for observer 2. On cirrhotic patients, observer 1 was excellent at all times for all parameters. Observer 2 had lower intraclass correlation coefficient values, especially for velocity on consecutive days. For the best of the two observers on the portal flow, the coefficient of variation in cirrhotic patients ranged from 2%-30% with a mean +/- SEM of 12% +/- 4%. No acceptable interobserver agreement was found between the two observers in either of the two samples of subjects. These results support the use of this technique mainly for the determination of rapid and large changes in portal hemodynamics within a short period of time. The technique seems to have low precision in monitoring chronic changes in portal hemodynamics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Cited by
Ultrasonographic diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis or cirrhosis
Aubé, C., Oberti, F., Korali, N., Namour, M.-A., Loisel, D., Tanguy, J.-Y., Valsesia, E., Pilette, C., Rousselet, M. C., Bedossa, P., et al. (1999) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/s0168-8278(99)80107-x · Cited by 256
Ansaldo, G. L., Pretolesi, F., Varaldo, E., Meola, C., Minuto, M., Borgonovo, G., Derchi, L. E., & Torre, G. C. (2000) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/s1072-7515(00)00755-9 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Sabbá, C., Weltin, G. G., Cicchetti, D. V., Ferraioli, G., Taylor, K. J. W., Nakamura, T., Moriyasu, F., & Groszmann, R. J.
- Venue
- Gastroenterology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1990-06
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1603-1611
- ISSN
- 0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1829799337
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Observer variability in echo-Doppler measurements of portal flow in cirrhotic patients and normal volunteers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0016-5085(90)91097-p
- The paper
- Sabbá, C., Weltin, G. G., Cicchetti, D. V., Ferraioli, G., Taylor, K. J. W., Nakamura, T., Moriyasu, F., & Groszmann, R. J. (1990). Observer variability in echo-Doppler measurements of portal flow in cirrhotic patients and normal volunteers. Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-5085(90)91097-p
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.