Dataset Information

Inter-rater agreement in evaluation of disability: systematic review of reproducibility studies.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To explore agreement among healthcare professionals assessing eligibility for work disability benefits.

Design

Systematic review and narrative synthesis of reproducibility studies.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO searched up to 16 March 2016, without language restrictions, and review of bibliographies of included studies.

Eligibility criteria

Observational studies investigating reproducibility among healthcare professionals performing disability evaluations using a global rating of working capacity and reporting inter-rater reliability by a statistical measure or descriptively. Studies could be conducted in insurance settings, where decisions on ability to work include normative judgments based on legal considerations, or in research settings, where decisions on ability to work disregard normative considerations. : Teams of paired reviewers identified eligible studies, appraised their methodological quality and generalisability, and abstracted results with pretested forms. As heterogeneity of research designs and findings impeded a quantitative analysis, a descriptive synthesis stratified by setting (insurance or research) was performed.

Results

From 4562 references, 101 full text articles were reviewed. Of these, 16 studies conducted in an insurance setting and seven in a research setting, performed in 12 countries, met the inclusion criteria. Studies in the insurance setting were conducted with medical experts assessing claimants who were actual disability claimants or played by actors, hypothetical cases, or short written scenarios. Conditions were mental (n=6, 38%), musculoskeletal (n=4, 25%), or mixed (n=6, 38%). Applicability of findings from studies conducted in an insurance setting to real life evaluations ranged from generalisable (n=7, 44%) and probably generalisable (n=3, 19%) to probably not generalisable (n=6, 37%). Median inter-rater reliability among experts was 0.45 (range intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86 to ?-0.10). Inter-rater reliability was poor in six studies (37%) and excellent in only two (13%). This contrasts with studies conducted in the research setting, where the median inter-rater reliability was 0.76 (range 0.91-0.53), and 71% (5/7) studies achieved excellent inter-rater reliability. Reliability between assessing professionals was higher when the evaluation was guided by a standardised instrument (23 studies, P=0.006). No such association was detected for subjective or chronic health conditions or the studies' generalisability to real world evaluation of disability (P=0.46, 0.45, and 0.65, respectively).

Conclusions

Despite their common use and far reaching consequences for workers claiming disabling injury or illness, research on the reliability of medical evaluations of disability for work is limited and indicates high variation in judgments among assessing professionals. Standardising the evaluation process could improve reliability. Development and testing of instruments and structured approaches to improve reliability in evaluation of disability are urgently needed.

SUBMITTER: Barth J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5283380 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Inter-rater agreement in evaluation of disability: systematic review of reproducibility studies.

Barth Jürgen J de Boer Wout E L WE Busse Jason W JW Hoving Jan L JL Kedzia Sarah S Couban Rachel R Fischer Katrin K von Allmen David Y DY Spanjer Jerry J Kunz Regina R

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20170125

<h4>Objectives</h4> To explore agreement among healthcare professionals assessing eligibility for work disability benefits.<h4>Design</h4> Systematic review and narrative synthesis of reproducibility studies.<h4>Data sources</h4> Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO searched up to 16 March 2016, without language restrictions, and review of bibliographies of included studies.<h4>Eligibility criteria</h4> Observational studies investigating reproducibility among healthcare professionals performing disabi ...[more]

PMID: 28122727

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: It has been recommended that clinical trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) would be more ecologically valid if its characteristic mode of diagnostic reasoning were integrated into their design. In that context, however, it is also widely held that demonstrating a high level of agreement on initial TCM diagnoses is necessary for the replicability that the biomedical paradigm requires for the conclusions from such trials. Our aim was to review, summarize, and critique quantitative experimental studies of inter-rater agreement in TCM, and some of their underlying assumptions. Design: Systematic electronic searches were conducted for articles that reported a quantitative measure of inter-rater agreement across a number of rating choices based on examinations of human subjects in person by TCM practitioners, and published in English language peer-reviewed journals. Publications in languages other than English were not included, nor those appearing in other than peer-reviewed journals. Predefined categories of information were extracted from full texts by two investigators working independently. Each article was scored for methodological quality. Outcome measures: Design features across all studies and levels of inter-rater agreement across studies that reported the same type of outcome statistic were compared. Results: Twenty-one articles met inclusion criteria. Fourteen assessed inter-rater agreement on TCM diagnoses, two on diagnostic signs found upon traditional TCM examination, and five on novel rating schemes derived from TCM theory and practice. Raters were students of TCM colleges or graduates of TCM training programs with 3 or more years experience and licensure. Type of outcome statistic varied. Mean rates of pairwise agreement averaged 57% (median 65, range 19-96) across the 9 studies reporting them. Mean Cohen's kappa averaged 0.34 (median 0.34, range 0.07-0.59) across the seven studies reporting them. Meta-analysis was not possible due to variations in study design and outcome statistics. High risks of bias and confounding, and deficits in statistical reporting were common. Conclusions: With a few exceptions, the levels of agreement were low to moderate. Most studies had significant deficits of both methodology and reporting. Results overall suggest a few design features that might contribute to higher levels of agreement. These should be studied further with better experimental controls and more thorough reporting of outcomes. In addition, methods of complex systems analysis should be explored to more adequately model the relationship between clinical outcomes, and the series of diagnoses and treatments that are the norm in actual TCM practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Expert psychiatrists conducting work disability evaluations often disagree on work capacity (WC) when assessing the same patient. More structured and standardised evaluations focusing on function could improve agreement. The RELY studies aimed to establish the inter-rater reproducibility (reliability and agreement) of 'functional evaluations' in patients with mental disorders applying for disability benefits and to compare the effect of limited versus intensive expert training on reproducibility. METHODS:We performed two multi-centre reproducibility studies on standardised functional WC evaluation (RELY 1 and 2). Trained psychiatrists interviewed 30 and 40 patients respectively and determined WC using the Instrument for Functional Assessment in Psychiatry (IFAP). Three psychiatrists per patient estimated WC from videotaped evaluations. We analysed reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]) and agreement ('standard error of measurement' [SEM] and proportions of comparisons within prespecified limits) between expert evaluations of WC. Our primary outcome was WC in alternative work (WCalternative.work), 100-0%. Secondary outcomes were WC in last job (WClast.job), 100-0%; patients' perceived fairness of the evaluation, 10-0, higher is better; usefulness to psychiatrists. RESULTS:Inter-rater reliability for WCalternative.work was fair in RELY 1 (ICC 0.43; 95%CI 0.22-0.60) and RELY 2 (ICC 0.44; 0.25-0.59). Agreement was low in both studies, the 'standard error of measurement' for WCalternative.work was 24.6 percentage points (20.9-28.4) and 19.4 (16.9-22.0) respectively. Using a 'maximum acceptable difference' of 25 percentage points WCalternative.work between two experts, 61.6% of comparisons in RELY 1, and 73.6% of comparisons in RELY 2 fell within these limits. Post-hoc secondary analysis for RELY 2 versus RELY 1 showed a significant change in SEMalternative.work (- 5.2 percentage points WCalternative.work [95%CI - 9.7 to - 0.6]), and in the proportions on the differences ≤ 25 percentage points WCalternative.work between two experts (p = 0.008). Patients perceived the functional evaluation as fair (RELY 1: mean 8.0; RELY 2: 9.4), psychiatrists as useful. CONCLUSIONS:Evidence from non-randomised studies suggests that intensive training in functional evaluation may increase agreement on WC between experts, but fell short to reach stakeholders' expectations. It did not alter reliability. Isolated efforts in training psychiatrists may not suffice to reach the expected level of agreement. A societal discussion about achievable goals and readiness to consider procedural changes in WC evaluations may deserve considerations.

Project description:Systematic reviews have been challenged to consider effects on disadvantaged groups. A priori specification of subgroup analyses is recommended to increase the credibility of these analyses. This study aimed to develop and assess inter-rater agreement for an algorithm for systematic review authors to predict whether differences in effect measures are likely for disadvantaged populations relative to advantaged populations (only relative effect measures were addressed).A health equity plausibility algorithm was developed using clinimetric methods with three items based on literature review, key informant interviews and methodology studies. The three items dealt with the plausibility of differences in relative effects across sex or socioeconomic status (SES) due to: 1) patient characteristics; 2) intervention delivery (i.e., implementation); and 3) comparators. Thirty-five respondents (consisting of clinicians, methodologists and research users) assessed the likelihood of differences across sex and SES for ten systematic reviews with these questions. We assessed inter-rater reliability using Fleiss multi-rater kappa.The proportion agreement was 66% for patient characteristics (95% confidence interval: 61%-71%), 67% for intervention delivery (95% confidence interval: 62% to 72%) and 55% for the comparator (95% confidence interval: 50% to 60%). Inter-rater kappa, assessed with Fleiss kappa, ranged from 0 to 0.199, representing very low agreement beyond chance.Users of systematic reviews rated that important differences in relative effects across sex and socioeconomic status were plausible for a range of individual and population-level interventions. However, there was very low inter-rater agreement for these assessments. There is an unmet need for discussion of plausibility of differential effects in systematic reviews. Increased consideration of external validity and applicability to different populations and settings is warranted in systematic reviews to meet this need.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine agreement on endometriosis diagnosis between real-time laparoscopy and subsequent expert review of digital images, operative reports, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and histopathology, viewed sequentially.DesignInter-rater agreement study.SettingFive urban surgical centres.PopulationWomen, aged 18-44 years, who underwent a laparoscopy regardless of clinical indication. A random sample of 105 women with and 43 women without a postoperative endometriosis diagnosis was obtained from the ENDO study.MethodsLaparoscopies were diagnosed, digitally recorded, and reassessed.Main outcome measuresInter-observer agreement of endometriosis diagnosis and staging according to the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine criteria. Prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa values (?) were calculated for diagnosis, and weighted ? values were calculated for staging.ResultsSurgeons and expert reviewers had substantial agreement on diagnosis and staging after viewing digital images (n = 148; mean ? = 0.67, range 0.61-0.69; mean ? = 0.64, range 0.53-0.78, respectively) and after additionally viewing operative reports (n = 148; mean ? = 0.88, range 0.85-0.89; mean ? = 0.85, range 0.84-0.86, respectively). Although additionally viewing MRI findings (n = 36) did not greatly impact agreement, agreement substantially decreased after viewing histological findings (n = 67), with expert reviewers changing their assessment from a positive to a negative diagnosis in up to 20% of cases.ConclusionAlthough these findings suggest that misclassification bias in the diagnosis or staging of endometriosis via visualised disease is minimal, they should alert gynaecologists who review operative images in order to make decisions on endometriosis treatment that operative reports/drawings and histopathology, but not necessarily MRI, will improve their ability to make sound judgments.Tweetable abstractEndometriosis diagnosis and staging agreement between expert reviewers and operating surgeons was substantial.

Dataset Information

Inter-rater agreement in evaluation of disability: systematic review of reproducibility studies.

Objectives

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Inter-rater agreement in evaluation of disability: systematic review of reproducibility studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets