Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1.
(A and B) Distribution of gastric retention values at 2 h (A) and 4 h (B) for all 431 participants. (C and D) Distribution of gastric retention values at 4 h for patients with gastric retention > 65% at 2 h (C) and < 45% at 2 h (D).
- FIGURE 2.
Scatterplot of 2-h vs. 4-h gastric retention values. Four-hour cutoff of 10% for delayed gastric emptying is illustrated by vertical dashed line. Bonta 2-h criteria for delayed (>65%) and normal (<45%) gastric retention are shown by horizontal dashed lines. False-positive results (2-h retention > 65%; 4-h retention ≤ 10%) correspond to shaded area at upper left, whereas false-negative results (2-h retention < 45%; 4-h retention > 10%) correspond to shaded area at lower right. GE = gastric emptying; MMC = Montefiore Medical Center; S&W =Baylor Scott & White Health; TOH = The Ottawa Hospital; UVM = University of Vermont Hospital.
- FIGURE 3.
Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve for 2-h gastric retention for diagnosis of delayed 4-h gastric emptying. Sensitivity and specificity of Bonta criteria (●) are more accurate than any single 2-h cutoff. AUC = Area under curve.
Tables
Center n Women (n) Delayed 4-h emptying (n) Montefiore Medical Center 130 89 (68.5%) 34 (26.2%) Baylor Scott & White Health 100 74 (74.0%) 23 (23.0%) Ottawa Hospital 101 77 (76.2%) 17 (16.8%) University of Vermont Hospital 100 66 (66.0%) 31 (31.0%) Total 431 306 (71.0%) 105 (24.4%) Finding 4 h > 10% 4 h ≤ 10% Total Shortened protocol positive 97 10 107 Shortened protocol negative 8 316 324 Total 105 326 431 Parameter Multicenter Bonta original dataset Bonta validation dataset n 431 174 158 Prevalence of delayed gastric emptying (%) 24.4 26 Not applicable Proportion of patients stopped at 2 h (%) 74.9 79 78 Accuracy (%) 95.8 96.6 94.9
