Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Digital subtraction angiography image showing the points where measurements were taken.

The NASCET method uses the distal segment as a comparator to the stenotic region. The WASID method divides the stenotic segment measurement by the proximal normal segment.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Linear correlation between NASCET and WASID methods in each observer and all 3 observers.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Scatterplots of NASCET and WASID measurements.

(A) The measurements of Observer 1. (B) The measurements of Observer 2. (C) The measurements of Observer 3. (D) The mean measurements of all 3 observers.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Bland-Altman plots of intra-observer reproducibility of the NASCET and WASID methods.

(A, C and E) WASID method for Observer 1, 2 and 3, respectively. (B, D and F) NASCET method for Observer 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 2.

Mean±SEM, ICC, Spearman’s R value, and Pearson correlation coefficient statistics of intra-observer agreement.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

The mean absolute difference and 95% confidence intervals of the mean difference of intra- and inter-observer variabilities in the evaluation of MCA stenosis.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

The mean CVs of intra- and inter-observer of the MCA stenosis measurements between the two methods.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Mean±SEM, ICC, Spearman’s R value, and Pearson correlation coefficient statistics of inter-observer agreement.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 4.

Bland-Altman plots of inter-observer reproducibility of the NASCET and WASID methods.

(A, C and E) WASID method for Observers 1&2, 1&3 and 2&3, respectively. (B, D and F) NASCET method for Observers 1&2, 1&3 and 2&3, respectively.

More »

Fig 4 Expand