Dataset Information

High inter-rater reliability of Japanese bedriddenness ranks and cognitive function scores: a hospital-based prospective observational study

ABSTRACT:

Background

The statistical validities of the official Japanese classifications of activities of daily living (ADLs), including bedriddenness ranks (BR) and cognitive function scores (CFS), have yet to be assessed. To this aim, we evaluated the ability of BR and CFS to assess ADLs using inter-rater reliability and criterion-related validity.

Methods

New inpatients aged ?75?years were enrolled in this hospital-based prospective observational study. BR and CFS were assessed once by an attending nurse, and then by a social worker/medical clerk. We evaluated inter-rater reliability between different professions by calculating the concordance rate, kappa coefficient, Cronbach’s ?, and intraclass correlation coefficient. We also estimated the relationship of the Barthel Index and Katz Index with the BR and CFS using Spearman’s correlation coefficients.

Results

For the 271 patients enrolled, BR at the first assessment revealed 66 normal, 10 of J1, 15 of J2, 18 of A1, 31 of A2, 37 of B1, 35 of B2, 22 of C1, and 32 of C2. The concordance rate between the two BR assessments was 68.6%, with a kappa coefficient of 0.61, Cronbach’s ? of 0.91, and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.83, thus showing good inter-rater reliability. BR was negatively correlated with the Barthel Index (r?=???0.848, p?Conclusions BR and CFS could be reliable and easy-to-use grading scales of ADLs in acute clinical practice or large-scale screening, with high inter-rater reliabilities among different professions and significant correlations with well-established, though complicated to use, instruments to assess ADLs.

Trial registration

UMIN000041051 (2020/7/10).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-021-02108-x.

SUBMITTER: Tago M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7941919 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo reliably quantify the radiographic severity of COVID-19 pneumonia with the Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema (RALE) score on clinical chest X-rays among inpatients and examine the prognostic value of baseline RALE scores on COVID-19 clinical outcomes.SettingHospitalised patients with COVID-19 in dedicated wards and intensive care units from two different hospital systems.Participants425 patients with COVID-19 in a discovery data set and 415 patients in a validation data set.Primary and secondary outcomesWe measured inter-rater reliability for RALE score annotations by different reviewers and examined for associations of consensus RALE scores with the level of respiratory support, demographics, physiologic variables, applied therapies, plasma host-response biomarkers, SARS-CoV-2 RNA load and clinical outcomes.ResultsInter-rater agreement for RALE scores improved from fair to excellent following reviewer training and feedback (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.85 vs 0.93, respectively). In the discovery cohort, the required level of respiratory support at the time of CXR acquisition (supplemental oxygen or non-invasive ventilation (n=178); invasive-mechanical ventilation (n=234), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n=13)) was significantly associated with RALE scores (median (IQR): 20.0 (14.1-26.7), 26.0 (20.5-34.0) and 44.5 (34.5-48.0), respectively, p<0.0001). Among invasively ventilated patients, RALE scores were significantly associated with worse respiratory mechanics (plateau and driving pressure) and gas exchange metrics (PaO2/FiO2 and ventilatory ratio), as well as higher plasma levels of IL-6, soluble receptor of advanced glycation end-products and soluble tumour necrosis factor receptor 1 (p<0.05). RALE scores were independently associated with 90-day survival in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted HR 1.04 (1.02-1.07), p=0.002). We replicated the significant associations of RALE scores with baseline disease severity and mortality in the independent validation data set.ConclusionsWith a reproducible method to measure radiographic severity in COVID-19, we found significant associations with clinical and physiologic severity, host inflammation and clinical outcomes. The incorporation of radiographic severity assessments in clinical decision-making may provide important guidance for prognostication and treatment allocation in COVID-19.

Project description:ObjectivesAccurate estimation of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on bedside data alone has importance to emergency department (ED) operations and throughput. The 13-item CORC (COVID [or coronavirus] Rule-out Criteria) rule had good overall diagnostic accuracy in retrospective derivation and validation. The objective of this study was to prospectively test the inter-rater reliability and diagnostic accuracy of the CORC score and rule (score ≤ 0 negative, > 0 positive) and compare the CORC rule performance with physician gestalt.MethodsThis noninterventional study was conducted at an urban academic ED from February 2021 to March 2021. Two practitioners were approached by research coordinators and asked to independently complete a form capturing the CORC criteria for their shared patient and their gestalt binary prediction of the SARS-CoV-2 test result and confidence (0%-100%). The criterion standard for SARS-CoV-2 was from reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction performed on a nasopharyngeal swab. The primary analysis was from weighted Cohen's kappa and likelihood ratios (LRs).ResultsFor 928 patients, agreement between observers was good for the total CORC score, κ = 0.613 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.579-0.646), and for the CORC rule, κ = 0.644 (95% CI = 0.591-0.697). The agreement for clinician gestalt binary determination of SARs-CoV-2 status was κ = 0.534 (95% CI = 0.437-0.632) with median confidence of 76% (first-third quartile = 66-88.5). For 425 patients who had the criterion standard, a negative CORC rule (both observers scored CORC < 0), the sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 51%, with a negative LR (LR-) of 0.24 (95% CI = 0.10-0.50). Among patients with a mean CORC score of >4, the prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test was 58% (95% CI = 28%-85%) and positive LR was 13.1 (95% CI = 4.5-37.2). Clinician gestalt demonstrated a sensitivity of 51% and specificity of 86% with a LR- of 0.57 (95% CI = 0.39-0.74).ConclusionIn this prospective study, the CORC score and rule demonstrated good inter-rater reliability and reproducible diagnostic accuracy for estimating the pretest probability of SARs-CoV-2 infection.

Project description:Background: There has been a groundswell of national support for transparent tracking and dissemination of PhD career outcomes. In 2017, individuals from multiple institutions and professional organizations met to create the Unified Career Outcomes Taxonomy (UCOT 2017), a three-tiered taxonomy to help institutions uniformly classify career outcomes of PhD graduates. Early adopters of UCOT 2017, noted ambiguity in some categories of the career taxonomy, raising questions about its consistent application within and across institutions. Methods: To test and evaluate the consistency of UCOT 2017, we calculated inter-rater reliability across two rounds of iterative refinement of the career taxonomy, classifying over 800 PhD alumni records via nine coders. Results: We identified areas of discordance in the taxonomy, and progressively refined UCOT 2017 and an accompanying Guidance Document to improve inter-rater reliability across all three tiers of the career taxonomy. However, differing interpretations of the classifications, especially for faculty classifications in the third tier, resulted in continued discordance among the coders. We addressed this discordance with clarifying language in the Guidance Document, and proposed the addition of a flag system for identification of the title, rank, and prefix of faculty members. This labeling system provides the additional benefit of highlighting the granularity and the intersectionality of faculty job functions, while maintaining the ability to sort by - and report data on - faculty and postdoctoral trainee roles, as is required by some national and federal reporting guidelines. We provide specific crosswalk guidance for how a user may choose to incorporate our suggestions while maintaining the ability to report in accordance with UCOT 2017. Conclusions: Our findings underscore the importance of detailed guidance documents, coder training, and periodic collaborative review of career outcomes taxonomies as PhD careers evolve in the global workforce. Implications for coder-training and use of novice coders are also discussed.

Project description:PurposeFirst, to evaluate inter-rater reliability when human raters estimate the reading performance of visually impaired individuals using the MNREAD acuity chart. Second, to evaluate the agreement between computer-based scoring algorithms and compare them with human rating.MethodsReading performance was measured for 101 individuals with low vision, using the Portuguese version of the MNREAD test. Seven raters estimated the maximum reading speed (MRS) and critical print size (CPS) of each individual MNREAD curve. MRS and CPS were also calculated automatically for each curve using two different algorithms: the original standard deviation method (SDev) and a non-linear mixed effects (NLME) modeling. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to estimate absolute agreement between raters and/or algorithms.ResultsAbsolute agreement between raters was 'excellent' for MRS (ICC = 0.97; 95%CI [0.96, 0.98]) and 'moderate' to 'good' for CPS (ICC = 0.77; 95%CI [0.69, 0.83]). For CPS, inter-rater reliability was poorer among less experienced raters (ICC = 0.70; 95%CI [0.57, 0.80]) when compared to experienced ones (ICC = 0.82; 95%CI [0.76, 0.88]). Absolute agreement between the two algorithms was 'excellent' for MRS (ICC = 0.96; 95%CI [0.91, 0.98]). For CPS, the best possible agreement was found for CPS defined as the print size sustaining 80% of MRS (ICC = 0.77; 95%CI [0.68, 0.84]). Absolute agreement between raters and automated methods was 'excellent' for MRS (ICC = 0.96; 95% CI [0.88, 0.98] for SDev; ICC = 0.97; 95% CI [0.95, 0.98] for NLME). For CPS, absolute agreement between raters and SDev ranged from 'poor' to 'good' (ICC = 0.66; 95% CI [0.3, 0.80]), while agreement between raters and NLME was 'good' (ICC = 0.83; 95% CI [0.76, 0.88]).ConclusionFor MRS, inter-rater reliability is excellent, even considering the possibility of noisy and/or incomplete data collected in low-vision individuals. For CPS, inter-rater reliability is lower. This may be problematic, for instance in the context of multisite investigations or follow-up examinations. The NLME method showed better agreement with the raters than the SDev method for both reading parameters. Setting up consensual guidelines to deal with ambiguous curves may help improve reliability. While the exact definition of CPS should be chosen on a case-by-case basis depending on the clinician or researcher's motivations, evidence suggests that estimating CPS as the smallest print size sustaining about 80% of MRS would increase inter-rater reliability.