MRMC analysis of agreement studies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gallas BD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5546377 | biostudies-other | 2016
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3736100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn inter-rater agreement studies, the assessment behaviour of raters can be influenced by their experience, training levels, the degree of willingness to take risks, and the availability of clear guidelines for the assessment. When the assessment behaviour of raters differentiates for some levels of an ordinal classification, a grey zone occurs between the corresponding adjacent cells to these levels around the main diagonal of the table. A grey zone introduces a negative bias to the estimate of the agreement level between the raters. In that sense, it is crucial to detect the existence of a grey zone in an agreement table.MethodsIn this study, a framework composed of a metric and the corresponding threshold is developed to identify grey zones in an agreement table. The symmetry model and Cohen's kappa are used to define the metric, and the threshold is based on a nonlinear regression model. A numerical study is conducted to assess the accuracy of the developed framework. Real data examples are provided to illustrate the use of the metric and the impact of identifying a grey zone.ResultsThe sensitivity and specificity of the proposed framework are shown to be very high under moderate, substantial, and near-perfect agreement levels for [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] tables and sample sizes greater than or equal to 100 and 50, respectively. Real data examples demonstrate that when a grey zone is detected in the table, it is possible to report a notably higher level of agreement in the studies.ConclusionsThe accuracy of the proposed framework is sufficiently high; hence, it provides practitioners with a precise way to detect the grey zones in agreement tables.
| S-EPMC9814438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Numerous metagenome-wide association studies (MWAS) for urolithiasis have been published, leading to the discovery of potential interactions between the microbiome and urolithiasis. However, questions remain about the reproducibility, applicability and physiological relevance of these data owing to discrepancies in experimental technique and a lack of standardization in the field. One barrier to interpreting MWAS is that experimental biases can be introduced at every step of the experimental pipeline, including sample collection, preservation, storage, processing, sequencing, data analysis and validation. Thus, the introduction of standardized protocols that maintain the flexibility to achieve study-specific objectives is urgently required. To address this need, the first international consortium for microbiome in urinary stone disease - MICROCOSM - was created and consensus panel members were asked to participate in a consensus meeting to develop standardized protocols for microbiome studies if they had published an MWAS on urolithiasis. Study-specific protocols were revised until a consensus was reached. This consensus group generated standardized protocols, which are publicly available via a secure online server, for each step in the typical clinical microbiome-urolithiasis study pipeline. This standardization creates the benchmark for future studies to facilitate consistent interpretation of results and, collectively, to lead to effective interventions to prevent the onset of urolithiasis, and will also be useful for investigators interested in microbiome research in other urological diseases.
| S-EPMC8105166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bland-Altman method comparison studies are common in the medical sciences and are used to compare a new measure to a gold-standard (often costlier or more invasive) measure. The distribution of these differences is summarized by two statistics, the 'bias' and standard deviation, and these measures are combined to provide estimates of the limits of agreement (LoA). When these LoA are within the bounds of clinically insignificant differences, the new non-invasive measure is preferred. Very often, multiple Bland-Altman studies have been conducted comparing the same two measures, and random-effects meta-analysis provides a means to pool these estimates. We provide a framework for the meta-analysis of Bland-Altman studies, including methods for estimating the LoA and measures of uncertainty (i.e., confidence intervals). Importantly, these LoA are likely to be wider than those typically reported in Bland-Altman meta-analyses. Frequently, Bland-Altman studies report results based on repeated measures designs but do not properly adjust for this design in the analysis. Meta-analyses of Bland-Altman studies frequently exclude these studies for this reason. We provide a meta-analytic approach that allows inclusion of estimates from these studies. This includes adjustments to the estimate of the standard deviation and a method for pooling the estimates based upon robust variance estimation. An example is included based on a previously published meta-analysis. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
| S-EPMC5585060 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Advances in breast imaging and other screening tests have prompted studies to evaluate and compare the consistency between experts' ratings of existing with new screening tests. In clinical settings, medical experts make subjective assessments of screening test results such as mammograms. Consistency between experts' ratings is evaluated by measures of inter-rater agreement or association. However, conventional measures, such as Cohen's and Fleiss' kappas, are unable to be applied or may perform poorly when studies consist of many experts, unbalanced data, or dependencies between experts' ratings exist. Here we assess the performance of existing approaches including recently developed summary measures for assessing the agreement between experts' binary and ordinal ratings when patients undergo two screening procedures. Methods to assess consistency between repeated measurements by the same experts are also described. We present applications to three large-scale clinical screening studies. Properties of these agreement measures are illustrated via simulation studies. Generally, a model-based approach provides several advantages over alternative methods including the ability to flexibly incorporate various measurement scales (i.e. binary or ordinal), large numbers of experts and patients, sparse data, and robustness to prevalence of underlying disease.
| S-EPMC8299998 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5283380 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6864748 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6607597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAssessing agreement in method comparison studies depends on two fundamentally important components; validity (the between method agreement) and reproducibility (the within method agreement). The Bland-Altman limits of agreement technique is one of the favoured approaches in medical literature for assessing between method validity. However, few researchers have adopted this approach for the assessment of both validity and reproducibility. This may be partly due to a lack of a flexible, easily implemented and readily available statistical machinery to analyse repeated measurement method comparison data.MethodsAdopting the Bland-Altman framework, but using Bayesian methods, we present this statistical machinery. Two multivariate hierarchical Bayesian models are advocated, one which assumes that the underlying values for subjects remain static (exchangeable replicates) and one which assumes that the underlying values can change between repeated measurements (non-exchangeable replicates).ResultsWe illustrate the salient advantages of these models using two separate datasets that have been previously analysed and presented; (i) assuming static underlying values analysed using both multivariate hierarchical Bayesian models, and (ii) assuming each subject's underlying value is continually changing quantity and analysed using the non-exchangeable replicate multivariate hierarchical Bayesian model.ConclusionThese easily implemented models allow for full parameter uncertainty, simultaneous method comparison, handle unbalanced or missing data, and provide estimates and credible regions for all the parameters of interest. Computer code for the analyses in also presented, provided in the freely available and currently cost free software package WinBUGS.
| S-EPMC2645135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE: To assess the agreement of the optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) device LENSTAR LS900 with partial coherence interferometry (PCI) device IOLMaster and applanation and immersion ultrasound biometry. METHODS: We conducted the study at the Ophthalmology Clinic, University of Malaya Medical Center, Malaysia. Phakic eyes of 76 consecutive cataract patients were measured using four different methods: IOLMaster, LENSTAR and A-scan applanation and immersion ultrasound biometry. We assessed the method agreement in the LENSTAR-IOLMaster, LENSTAR-applanation, and LENSTAR-immersion comparisons for axial length (AL) and intraocular lens (IOL) power using Bland-Altman plots. For average K, we compared LENSTAR with IOLMaster and the TOPCON KR-8100 autorefractor-keratometer. SRK/T formula was used to compute IOL power, with emmetropia as the target refractive outcome. RESULTS: For all the variables studied, LENSTAR agreement with IOLMaster is strongest, followed by those with immersion and applanation. For the LENSTAR-IOLMaster comparison, the estimated proportion of differences falling within 0.33?mm from zero AL and within 1D from zero IOL power is 100%. The estimated proportion of differences falling within 0.5 D from zero average K is almost 100% in the LENSTAR-IOLMaster comparison but 88% in the LENSTAR-TOPCON comparison. The proportion of differences falling within 0.10?mm (AL) and within 1D (IOL power) in the LENSTAR-IOLMaster comparison has practically significant discrepancy with that of LENSTAR-applanation and LENSTAR-immersion comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: In phakic eyes of cataract patients, measurements of AL, average K, and IOL power calculated using the SRK/T formula from LENSTAR are biometrically equivalent to those from IOLMaster, but not with those from applanation and immersion ultrasound biometry.
| S-EPMC3178124 | biostudies-literature