A Methodological Evaluation of Volumetric Measurement Techniques including Three-Dimensional Imaging in Breast Surgery
Table 4
Comparison of methods (controls).
Method 1
Method 2
ICC
Difference
Student’s -test
Wilcoxon
CV (%)
Bland-Altman
(ICC*)
value
value
( value)
T1–T4
Known volume
VIZ3D samp.
4
0.999 (0.968)
0.070
0.13
2.63
Pearson: 0.84 (0.16)
Spearman: 0.80 (0.20)
Known volume
Archimedes’ samp.
4
0.999 (0.982)
0.86
0.99
3.23
Pearson: −0.10 (0.90)
Spearman: 0.20 (0.80)
Known volume
CT scan samp.
4
0.999 (0.994)
0.41
0.50
2.16
Pearson: −0.899 (0.10)
Spearman: −0.80 (0.20)
VIZ3D samp.
Archimedes’ samp.
4
0.997 (0.982)
0.38
0.50
3.65
Pearson:−0.47 (0.53)
Spearman: −0.40 (0.60)
VIZ3D samp.
CT scan samp
4
0.998 (0.986)
0.54
0.63
3.18
Pearson: −0.956 (0.044)
Spearman: −1.00 (<0.0001)
Archimedes’ samp.
CT scan samp
4
0.997 (0.973)
0.78
0.88
4.06
Pearson: −0.34 (0.66)
Spearman: −0.20 (0.80)
Using these controls we compared one with another using our three methods of study and we found good concordances and relatively low coefficients of variation.
