HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH RSS TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hagen, P. J. Articles by Prins, M. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hagen, P. J. Articles by Prins, M. H.

How to Use a Gestalt Interpretation for Ventilation-Perfusion Lung Scintigraphy

¹ Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
² Department of Radiology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
³ Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
⁴ Department of Nuclear Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
⁵ Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
⁶ Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Academic Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands

The use of a so-called gestalt interpretation, an integration of different sets of criteria and the physician’s own experience, has been advocated in the interpretation of lung scintigraphs of patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism. However, data on the reliability of this approach are limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the observer variability and accuracy of the gestalt interpretation of perfusion scintigraphy (combined with chest radiography) as well as the impact of adding ventilation scintigraphy and clinical pretest information. Methods: Three experienced observers independently reviewed the chest radiograph and ventilation-perfusion scans of 101 consecutive patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism. All datasets were reviewed twice by each observer, using a visual analog scale to indicate the estimated probability of pulmonary embolism. The results of the gestalt interpretations were analyzed against the presence or absence of pulmonary embolism. Results: All 3 gestalt interpretations had a good-to-excellent interobserver variability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.73–0.89), with similar intraobserver agreement (ICC, 0.76–0.95). The performance of all 3 readers was comparable. The areas under the curve (AUCs) of all 3 observers were high and similar (for observer 1, the AUCs were 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI)], 0.93–1.00), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93–1.00), and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90–1.00), respectively, for the 3 gestalt interpretations). Conclusion: A gestalt interpretation is a useful classification scheme with good-to-excellent intra- and interobserver variability. However, the interpretation and the consequences of this result are dependent on the observer. Unexpectedly, the addition of information on ventilation scintigraphy and clinical information did not affect the overall assessment.

Key Words: ventilation-perfusion lung scintigraphy • pulmonary embolism • gestalt interpretation

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. A. Koontz and R. B. Gunderman Gestalt Theory: Implications for Radiology Education Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1156 - 1160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]