Interobserver Variability in Hysterosalpingography Interpretation: Radiologists vs Gynecologists

dc.contributor.authorKaradag, Ceyda
dc.contributor.authorGurses, Cemil
dc.contributor.authorKabaalioglu, Adnan
dc.contributor.authorGurses, Bengi
dc.contributor.authorGuzelmansur, Ismail
dc.contributor.authorDaplan, Turgay
dc.contributor.authorPabuccu, Emre Goksan
dc.date.accessioned2026-08-12T17:42:34Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.departmentFırat Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractObjective: To evaluate interobserver variability in the interpretation of hysterosalpingography (HSG) examinations among radiologists, gynecologists, and between the two specialties, highlighting areas of diagnostic agreement and discrepancy. Materials and Methods: In this prospective, multicenter study, 12 specialists (6 radiologists and 6 gynecologists) independently reviewed HSG images from 100 patients, evaluating 10 predefined diagnostic categories and overall image quality. Fleiss' kappa (kappa) was used to assess interobserver agreement within and between groups. Results: Interobserver agreement ranged from poor to moderate across most diagnostic categories. The highest agreement was observed for tubal occlusion (kappa = 0.508 radiologists vs gynecologists; kappa = 0.536 among radiologists; kappa = 0.460 among gynecologists), followed by uterine anomalies and hydrosalpinx. Poor agreement was noted for subjective parameters such as image quality and additional findings (kappa values < 0.1), with some negative kappa scores indicating agreement below chance. Conclusion: Significant interobserver variability exists in HSG interpretation, particularly between radiologists and gynecologists. Structured findings yielded higher agreement, while subjective assessments showed poor reproducibility. These findings underscore the need for standardized reporting guidelines, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the potential integration of AI-assisted interpretation to enhance diagnostic consistency and improve patient outcomes.
dc.identifier.doi10.2147/IJWH.S555065
dc.identifier.endpage3435
dc.identifier.issn1179-1411
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-2111-4018
dc.identifier.pmid41059501
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105017884737
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage3429
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S555065
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11508/59783
dc.identifier.volume17
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001588409400001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherDove Medical Press Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Womens Health
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20260511
dc.subjecthysterosalpingography
dc.subjectinterobserver variability
dc.subjectradiologists
dc.subjectgynecologists
dc.subjectinfertility
dc.subjectdiagnostic imaging
dc.subjectFleiss' kappa
dc.subjectstandardization
dc.subjectartificial intelligence
dc.titleInterobserver Variability in Hysterosalpingography Interpretation: Radiologists vs Gynecologists
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar