Dataset Information

Agreement and reproducibility of radiological signs in NEC using The Duke Abdominal Assessment Scale (DAAS).

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Abdominal radiography is currently an imaging modality of choice in NEC. Recently, a numeric scale of radiological signs in NEC-The Duke Abdominal Assessment (DAAS) was introduced. The aim of this study was to measure the intra- and inter-observer agreement on the radiological signs of NEC according to DAAS to access the feasibility of this scale.

Materials and methods

We have retrospectively analyzed 87 radiographs performed in a group of 43 high-risk neonates with suspected NEC. Radiographs were assessed by 6 independent observers: two pediatric radiologists, two radiology residents, and two neonatologists. Data were analyzed using ? statistics as a measure of intra- and inter-observer agreement.

Results

Fair-to-good intra-observer agreement was noted for all but one of observers. However, with the wide range in ? values, we found only fair inter-observer agreement detecting signs of NEC according to DAAS. There was a higher intra-group agreement in radiology practitioners, with the highest among experienced pediatric radiologists.

Conclusion

However, with high observer variability in interpretation of all radiologic signs, we did not confirm that Duke Abdominal Assessment Scale could reliable facilitate reporting of abdominal radiographic findings in neonates with suspected NEC.

SUBMITTER: Markiet K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5310549 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Agreement and reproducibility of radiological signs in NEC using The Duke Abdominal Assessment Scale (DAAS).

Markiet Karolina K Szymanska-Dubowik Anna A Janczewska Iwona I Domazalska-Popadiuk Iwona I Zawadzka-Kepczynska Anna A Bianek-Bodzak Agnieszka A

Pediatric surgery international 20161114 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Abdominal radiography is currently an imaging modality of choice in NEC. Recently, a numeric scale of radiological signs in NEC-The Duke Abdominal Assessment (DAAS) was introduced. The aim of this study was to measure the intra- and inter-observer agreement on the radiological signs of NEC according to DAAS to access the feasibility of this scale.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We have retrospectively ...[more]

PMID: 27844167

Similar Datasets

Project description: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 κ-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.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the agreement and precision of retinal thickness measurements obtained using swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) and spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT) in healthy eyes and eyes with retinopathy.MethodsThis cross-sectional prospective study involved three DRI-OCT Triton (SS-OCT) and three 3D-OCT-1 Maestro (SD-OCT) devices. One of each device (Maestro and Triton) was paired with a single operator. Healthy subjects and patients with retinal diseases were recruited, with study eye and testing order randomized. At least 3 scans per eye were captured for wide scan (12 mm × 9 mm-Triton and Maestro) and macular cube scan (7 mm × 7 mm-Triton, 6 mm × 6 mm-Maestro). Thickness of the full retina, ganglion cell layer + inner plexiform layer (GCL+), and ganglion cell complex (GCL++) were obtained from wide scan and cube scans. Agreement of the measurements between the Triton and Maestro was evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis and Deming regression for each group. Repeatability and reproducibility were assessed using a two-way random effect analysis of variance (ANOVA) model for each parameter by group.ResultsTwenty-five healthy subjects (25 eyes) and 26 patients with retinal diseases (26 eyes), including, but not limited to, age-related macular degeneration, macular hole, and diabetic retinopathy were recruited. Overall, the measurement differences between Triton and Maestro were <6 μm (mean differences of full retina, GCL++, and GCL+ thickness were ≤5.5 μm, 1.3 μm, and 2.8 μm, respectively) and not statistically significant across the parameters. The repeatability and reproducibility estimates indicate high precision in both devices and groups. Across all the parameters, the repeatability limit was ≤7.6 μm for Triton and ≤12.7 μm for Maestro; reproducibility limit was ≤9.2 μm for Triton and ≤14.4 μm for Maestro. In eyes with retinal pathology, the repeatability coefficient of variation (CV)% was ≤2.6% for Triton and ≤3.4% for Maestro; reproducibility CV% was ≤3.3% for Triton and ≤3.5% for Maestro.ConclusionBoth Triton SS-OCT and Maestro SD-OCT provide reliable measurements of retinal thickness in healthy eyes and eyes with retinal diseases. Excellent agreement between the two devices indicates interoperability when testing healthy eyes or eyes with retinal pathology. These findings support the use of thickness measurements from Triton SS-OCT and Maestro SD-OCT in clinical 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.

Dataset Information

Agreement and reproducibility of radiological signs in NEC using The Duke Abdominal Assessment Scale (DAAS).

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Agreement and reproducibility of radiological signs in NEC using The Duke Abdominal Assessment Scale (DAAS).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets