Validation of Electrical Impedance Tomography Qualitative and Quantitative Values and Comparison of the Numeric Pain Distress Score against Mammography

Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a potential supplement for mammogram screening. This study aimed to evaluate and feasibility of EIT as opposed to mammography and to determine pain perception with both imaging methods. Women undergoing screening mammography at the Radiology Department of Nat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Norsham, Juliana,, Suzana, Shahar,, Kanaga Kumari, Chelliah,, Ahmad Rohi, Ghazali,, Fazilah, Osman,, Mohd Azmani, Sahar,
Format: Article
Language:en_US
Published: Asian Pacific Organization Cancer Prevention 2015
Subjects:
EIT
Online Access:http://ddms.usim.edu.my/handle/123456789/8463
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my.usim-8463
record_format dspace
spelling my.usim-84632015-12-22T04:14:02Z Validation of Electrical Impedance Tomography Qualitative and Quantitative Values and Comparison of the Numeric Pain Distress Score against Mammography Norsham, Juliana, Suzana, Shahar, Kanaga Kumari, Chelliah, Ahmad Rohi, Ghazali, Fazilah, Osman, Mohd Azmani, Sahar, Breast screening EIT validation pain score mammography comparison Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a potential supplement for mammogram screening. This study aimed to evaluate and feasibility of EIT as opposed to mammography and to determine pain perception with both imaging methods. Women undergoing screening mammography at the Radiology Department of National University of Malaysia Medical Centre were randomly selected for EIT imaging. All women were requested to give a pain score after each imaging session. Two independent raters were chosen to define the image findings of EIT. A total of 164 women in the age range from 40 to 65-year-old participated and were divided into two groups; normal and abnormal. EIT sensitivity and specificity for rater 1 were 69.4% and 63.3, whereas for rater 2 they were 55.3% and 57.0% respectively. The reliability for each rater ranged between good to very good (p < 0.05). Quantitative values of EIT showed there were significant differences in all values between groups (ANCOVA, p < 0.05). Interestingly, EIT scored a median pain score of 1.51 +/- 0.75 whereas mammography scored 4.15 +/- 0.87 ( Mann Whitney U test, p < 0.05). From these quantitative values, EIT has the potential as a health discriminating index. Its ability to replace image findings from mammography needs further investigation. 2015-06-19T06:53:11Z 2015-06-19T06:53:11Z 2014 Article 1513-7368 http://ddms.usim.edu.my/handle/123456789/8463 en_US Asian Pacific Organization Cancer Prevention
institution Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
building USIM Library
collection Institutional Repository
continent Asia
country Malaysia
content_provider Universit Sains Islam i Malaysia
content_source USIM Institutional Repository
url_provider http://ddms.usim.edu.my/
language en_US
topic Breast screening
EIT
validation
pain score
mammography
comparison
spellingShingle Breast screening
EIT
validation
pain score
mammography
comparison
Norsham, Juliana,
Suzana, Shahar,
Kanaga Kumari, Chelliah,
Ahmad Rohi, Ghazali,
Fazilah, Osman,
Mohd Azmani, Sahar,
Validation of Electrical Impedance Tomography Qualitative and Quantitative Values and Comparison of the Numeric Pain Distress Score against Mammography
description Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a potential supplement for mammogram screening. This study aimed to evaluate and feasibility of EIT as opposed to mammography and to determine pain perception with both imaging methods. Women undergoing screening mammography at the Radiology Department of National University of Malaysia Medical Centre were randomly selected for EIT imaging. All women were requested to give a pain score after each imaging session. Two independent raters were chosen to define the image findings of EIT. A total of 164 women in the age range from 40 to 65-year-old participated and were divided into two groups; normal and abnormal. EIT sensitivity and specificity for rater 1 were 69.4% and 63.3, whereas for rater 2 they were 55.3% and 57.0% respectively. The reliability for each rater ranged between good to very good (p < 0.05). Quantitative values of EIT showed there were significant differences in all values between groups (ANCOVA, p < 0.05). Interestingly, EIT scored a median pain score of 1.51 +/- 0.75 whereas mammography scored 4.15 +/- 0.87 ( Mann Whitney U test, p < 0.05). From these quantitative values, EIT has the potential as a health discriminating index. Its ability to replace image findings from mammography needs further investigation.
format Article
author Norsham, Juliana,
Suzana, Shahar,
Kanaga Kumari, Chelliah,
Ahmad Rohi, Ghazali,
Fazilah, Osman,
Mohd Azmani, Sahar,
author_facet Norsham, Juliana,
Suzana, Shahar,
Kanaga Kumari, Chelliah,
Ahmad Rohi, Ghazali,
Fazilah, Osman,
Mohd Azmani, Sahar,
author_sort Norsham, Juliana,
title Validation of Electrical Impedance Tomography Qualitative and Quantitative Values and Comparison of the Numeric Pain Distress Score against Mammography
title_short Validation of Electrical Impedance Tomography Qualitative and Quantitative Values and Comparison of the Numeric Pain Distress Score against Mammography
title_full Validation of Electrical Impedance Tomography Qualitative and Quantitative Values and Comparison of the Numeric Pain Distress Score against Mammography
title_fullStr Validation of Electrical Impedance Tomography Qualitative and Quantitative Values and Comparison of the Numeric Pain Distress Score against Mammography
title_full_unstemmed Validation of Electrical Impedance Tomography Qualitative and Quantitative Values and Comparison of the Numeric Pain Distress Score against Mammography
title_sort validation of electrical impedance tomography qualitative and quantitative values and comparison of the numeric pain distress score against mammography
publisher Asian Pacific Organization Cancer Prevention
publishDate 2015
url http://ddms.usim.edu.my/handle/123456789/8463
_version_ 1645152421695979520
score 13.214268