Interobserver Variation in the Computed Tomographic Evaluation of Mediastinal Lymph Node Size in Patients With Potentially Resectable Lung Cancer

Guyatt, Gordon; Lefcoe, Michael S.; Walter, Stephen D.; Cook, Deborah J.; Troyan, Susan L.; Griffith, Lauren; King, Derek; Zylak, Carl J.; Hickey, N; Carrier, Guy

doi:10.1378/chest.107.1.116

Cited by 42 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar problems have been addressed for multiple myeloma [13] and lung cancer [14,15]. This might partially be due to the fact that these reports were often made in an early stage of the diagnostic process, initially on a patient with unidentified abdominal symptoms without the clinical suspicion of pancreatic or hepatobiliary disease.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Reinterpretation of radiological imaging in patients referred to a tertiary referral centre with a suspected pancreatic or hepatobiliary malignancy: impact on treatment strategy

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Reinterpretation of radiological imaging in patients referred to a tertiary referral centre with a suspected pancreatic or hepatobiliary malignancy: impact on treatment strategy

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several studies have shown that radiologists differ in their evaluation of CT images used to determine the mediastinal lymph node status of patients with lung cancer [4,7,20]. The study of Fletcher and coworkers [16] found that expert radiologists did not completely agree in their interpretation of cervical-thoracic CT images of HL and the authors list the potential disease sites at risk of misinterpretation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Imaging interpretations may vary substantially even among expert observers [14,38,45]. Several studies have shown that radiologists differ in their interpretation of computed tomography (CT) images when determining mediastinal lymph node status in patients with lung cancer [4,7,20]; in HL, a study designed to test the extent of variation among expert radiologists' detection of cervical-thoracic disease by CT showed a variability that may affect patient care [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interobserver variability of clinical target volume delineation in supra-diaphragmatic Hodgkin’s disease

Genovesi

Cèfaro²,

Vinciguerra³

et al. 2011

Strahlenther Onkol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lack of reproducibility will inflate required samples sizes, and potentially lead to false-negative trial results. The limited interobserver agreement that investigators have usually observed when examining radiographic interpretation (6)(7)(8)(9) suggests that both clinicians and scientists should attend to this issue.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interobserver Variation in Interpreting Chest Radiographs for the Diagnosis of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Meade

Cook

Guyatt

et al. 2000

Am J Respir Crit Care Med

247

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To measure the reliability of chest radiographic diagnosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) we conducted an observer agreement study in which two of eight intensivists and a radiologist, blinded to one another's interpretation, reviewed 778 radiographs from 99 critically ill patients. One intensivist and a radiologist participated in pilot training. Raters made a global rating of the presence of ARDS on the basis of diffuse bilateral infiltrates. We assessed interobserver agreement in a pairwise fashion. For rater pairings in which one rater had not participated in the consensus process we found moderate levels of raw (0.68 to 0.80), chance-corrected (kappa 0.38 to 0.55), and chance-independent (Phi 0. 53 to 0.75) agreement. The pair of raters who participated in consensus training achieved excellent to almost perfect raw (0.88 to 0.94), chance-corrected (kappa 0.72 to 0.88), and chance-independent (Phi 0.74 to 0.89) agreement. We conclude that intensivists without formal consensus training can achieve moderate levels of agreement. Consensus training is necessary to achieve the substantial or almost perfect levels of agreement optimal for the conduct of clinical trials.

show abstract

Interobserver Variation in the Computed Tomographic Evaluation of Mediastinal Lymph Node Size in Patients With Potentially Resectable Lung Cancer

Cited by 42 publications

References 9 publications

Reinterpretation of radiological imaging in patients referred to a tertiary referral centre with a suspected pancreatic or hepatobiliary malignancy: impact on treatment strategy

Reinterpretation of radiological imaging in patients referred to a tertiary referral centre with a suspected pancreatic or hepatobiliary malignancy: impact on treatment strategy

Interobserver variability of clinical target volume delineation in supra-diaphragmatic Hodgkin’s disease

Interobserver Variation in Interpreting Chest Radiographs for the Diagnosis of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About