General Nurse Practitioner News

NP

sponsor
Become a Member Today!
Register
Email:


Password:

Remember me
Forgot your Password?
Invite Code?
Article ID

Your Article Summary

(Click the title below to leave the MDLinx Network and go to the Journal's Website)

Freire CMV et al. – The average timespan for manual measurements (57.30 s) were significantly higher than for automated measurements (2.52 s). There were no systematic errors between methods in any carotid segments. The variation coefficient was 5.54% to 6.34% for CC and BIF, 9.76% for IC, and absolute differences were 85% below 0.1 mm and 70% below 0.05 mm. Interobserver agreement showed no systematic error. The variation and the repeatability coefficients were better for the automated than manual measures. Although both methods are reliable for cIMT measurements, the automated technique allows faster evaluation with lesser variability for all carotid segments currently used in atherosclerosis research.


Sponsor

Article Search

Keyword:

Search:

Published within

Sort By:
Date
Relevance


Sponsor

Sponsor

Send this Summary to a Colleague

Enter email address