Intra and interobserver concordance between the different classifications used in Legg–Calvé–Perthes disease

Liggieri, André Cicone; Tamanaha, Marcos Josei; Abechain, José Jorge Kitagaki; Ikeda, Tiago Moreno; Dobashi, Eiffel Tsuyoshi

doi:10.1016/j.rboe.2015.09.010

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The height-width ratio demonstrated intraobserver level of agreement from −0.010 to 0.022, and interobserver reliability compared with the paediatric orthopaedist from −0.021 to 0.003. After converting the height-width ratio to the [13], 0.68-0.82 in lateral pillar [12,13] and 0.60-0.92 in modified lateral pillar [7,14]. Aforementioned interobserver agreement was 0.44-0.79 in Catterall [13,15], 0.16 in Salter-Thompson [13], 0.39-0.72 in lateral pillar [12,13] and 0.57-0.92 in modified lateral pillar [7,14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validation of the height–width measurement in Perthes disease among interpreters of different experience levels

Sanitsakul

Woratanarat

Jaovisidha

et al. 2022

Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The epiphyseal height and metaphyseal width ratio estimated lateral pillar involvement with limited generalizability among various interpreters. The aim of the study was to evaluate the reliability and the validity of height-width ratio measurement in Perthes disease among interpreters of different experience levels. A crosssectional study was conducted between 2019 and 2020. We included four groups of interpreters: orthopaedic residents, orthopaedic fellows, radiology residents and radiology fellows who were unaware of radiographic study materials. Each interpreter blindedly evaluated Perthes hip radiographs twice at 1-month intervals using the height-width ratio method. Patients' and interpreters' characteristics, height-width ratio and height-width ratio converted to lateral pillar classification (A, B and C) were collected. Intra-and interobserver reliability validated with the paediatric orthopaedist were estimated. Twentyfour interpreters assessed 18 Perthes radiographs. Intraobserver level of agreement (95% confidence interval) for height-width ratio was 0.022 (−0.017 to 0.062), −0.027 (−0.074 to 0.019), −0.010 (−0.095 to 0.074) and 0.019 (−0.109 to 0.146); and interobserver reliability compared with the paediatric orthopaedist was −0.007 (−0.091 to 0.077), 0.003 (−0.056 to 0.061), −0.021 (−0.077 to 0.035) and −0.002 (−0.090 to 0.086) for orthopaedic residents and fellows, radiology residents and fellows, respectively. Kappa statistics of height-width ratio converting to lateral pillar classification indicated intraobserver agreement of orthopaedic residents and fellows, radiology residents and fellows was 0.83, 0.75, 0.54 and 0.91; and interobserver agreement compared with the paediatric orthopaedist was 0.92, 0.83, 0.42 and 0.83, orderly. Height-width ratio and lateral pillar estimation by orthopaedic and radiology trainees have moderate to excellent reliability. Level of evidence: Level II -diagnostic study.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After converting the height-width ratio to the [13], 0.68-0.82 in lateral pillar [12,13] and 0.60-0.92 in modified lateral pillar [7,14]. Aforementioned interobserver agreement was 0.44-0.79 in Catterall [13,15], 0.16 in Salter-Thompson [13], 0.39-0.72 in lateral pillar [12,13] and 0.57-0.92 in modified lateral pillar [7,14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the height–width measurement in Perthes disease among interpreters of different experience levels

Sanitsakul

Woratanarat

Jaovisidha

et al. 2022

Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The number of radiographs and observers in this study is therefore within the norms found in the literature. 6 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of interobserver agreement in Albertoni's classification for mallet finger

Almeida

Fernandes

Santos

et al. 2018

Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo measure the reliability of Albertoni's classification for mallet finger.MethodsAgreement study. Forty-three radiographs of patients with mallet finger were assessed by 19 responders (12 hand surgeons and seven residents). Injuries were classified by Albertoni's classification. For agreement comparison, lesions were grouped as: (A) tendon avulsion; (B) avulsion fracture; (C) fracture of the dorsal lip; and (D) physis injury–and subgroups (each group divided into two subgroups). Agreement was assessed by Fleiss's modification for kappa statistics.ResultsAgreement was excellent for Group A (k = 0.95 (0.93–0.97)) and remained good when separated into A1 and A2. Group B was moderate (k = 0.42 (0.39–0.44)) and poor when separated into B1 and B2. In the Group C, agreement was good (k = 0.72 (0.70–0.74)), but when separated into C1 and C2, it became moderate. Group D was always poor (k = 0.16 (0.14–0.19)). The general agreement was moderate, with (k = 0.57 (0.56–0.58)).ConclusionAlbertoni's classification evaluated for interobserver agreement is considered a reproducible classification by the method used in the research.

show abstract

“…Interobserver agreement was assessed by the Kappa test ( κ ) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs), and the values assumed for agreement were considered as follows: 0.20: poor; 0.21–0.40: fair; 0.41–0.60: moderate; 0.61–0.80: good; 0.81–1.00: very good. 4 5 6 The CT diagnosis was assumed as a reference evaluation. All analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, US), version 22.0 for Windows.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A concordância interobservador foi avaliada pelo teste de Kappa ( κ ), com intervalos de confiança de 95% (IC95%), e os valores assumidos para a concordância foram considerados da seguinte forma: 0.20: muito fraca; 0.21–0.40: fraca; 0.41–0.60: moderada; 0.61–0.80: boa; 0.81–1.00: muito boa. 4 5 6 Como avaliação de referência foi assumido o diagnóstico oriundo da TC. Todas as análises foram realizadas utilizando o programa Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, US), versão 22.0 para Windows.…”

Section: Análise Dos Dadosunclassified

Avaliação da concordância interobservador no diagnóstico de lesões do anel pélvico posterior usando radiografia simples

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the interobserver agreement of a radiologist, two hip specialist orthopedists with experience in the treatment of pelvic and acetabulum fractures, two general orthopedists, two orthopedics residents and two radiology residents regarding the diagnosis of posterior pelvic ring injuries using plain radiography. Method A cross-sectional study conducted in September 2017. The exams of 20 patients who had been treated for traumatic lesions of the posterior pelvic ring were randomly selected.. A total of nine examiners from different medical fields evaluated the plain pelvic radiographs; those were compared with computed tomography, scans, which are considered a confirmatory diagnostic criterion. Interobserver agreement was assessed using the Kappa test ( κ ) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). Results A total of 28 lesions were found by computed tomography (23%; 95%CI: 16–32%) among all of the cases evaluated. The interobserver agreement between plain radiography and computed tomography was moderate among physicians with more experience: a radiologist ( κ = 0.461; 95%CI: 0.270–0.652), hip specialists 1 and 2 ( κ = 0.534; 95%CI: 0.348–0.721 and κ = 0.431; 95%CI: 0.235–0.627 respectively), and general orthopedists 1 and 2 ( κ = 0.497; 95%CI: 0.307–0.686 and κ = 0.449; 95%CI: 0.254–0.645 respectively). Among the orthopedics and radiology residents, the interobserver agreement was considered poor. High false negative values were found among all of the examiners, especially regarding posterior iliac fractures and sacrum fractures. Conclusion Professionals with greater experience in the field have a better ability to identify posterior pelvic ring lesions by plain radiography, but we emphasize that plain pelvic radiography was susceptible to false negative evaluations among all of the professionals assessed.

show abstract

Intra and interobserver concordance between the different classifications used in Legg–Calvé–Perthes disease

Cited by 5 publications

References 22 publications

Validation of the height–width measurement in Perthes disease among interpreters of different experience levels

Validation of the height–width measurement in Perthes disease among interpreters of different experience levels

Evaluation of interobserver agreement in Albertoni's classification for mallet finger

Avaliação da concordância interobservador no diagnóstico de lesões do anel pélvico posterior usando radiografia simples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About