Making the grade? Modification of dental radiograph quality ratings.

George D Rodgers, Mohammad O Sharif, Adam B Smith, Margaret Kellett, Paul A Brunton
{"title":"Making the grade? Modification of dental radiograph quality ratings.","authors":"George D Rodgers,&nbsp;Mohammad O Sharif,&nbsp;Adam B Smith,&nbsp;Margaret Kellett,&nbsp;Paul A Brunton","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To compare the intra- and inter-assessor agreement and operator preference of a modified (four-grade) quality rating system for dental radiographs with the current National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) (three-grade) quality rating system.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty radiographic images of varying quality were selected by retrospective review of dental records from a general dental practice. The images were sorted into groups to represent examples of radiographic quality (1=excellent, 2=diagnostically acceptable, 3=diagnostically compromised, 4=unacceptable). A 'gold standard' for radiological quality assessment was provided by a consultant in dental and maxillofacial radiology. A compact disc (CD) of the 60 images was produced and posted to a panel of 14 general dental practitioners (GDPs) who were asked to grade the quality of the images using two different systems on two occasions separated by a washout period of two days. The practitioners graded the radiographs using the currently accepted method for assessing radiographic quality (the three-grade NRPB system) and the alternative four-grade system. The quality of the images on the CD was deemed appropriate by the consultant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The strength of inter-assessor agreement was weaker when using a four-grade system in comparison to a three-grade system, reducing to a mean of k=0.51 from a mean of k=0.61 when using the original grading system. Mean agreement did not fall below 'moderate agreement' (k=0.41-0.60). Eleven of the 14 GDPs preferred the four-grade system.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The GDPs who participated in this study preferred the four-grade system to the three-grade system when comparing the quality of dental radiographs. However, the strength of agreement was weaker when using the four-grade system in comparison to the three-grade system. Overall, the results are equivocal. However, they should help to inform specialist dental radiology panels, should revision of quality grading be undertaken in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":79454,"journal":{"name":"Primary dental care : journal of the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners (UK)","volume":"18 3","pages":"119-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary dental care : journal of the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners (UK)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To compare the intra- and inter-assessor agreement and operator preference of a modified (four-grade) quality rating system for dental radiographs with the current National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) (three-grade) quality rating system.

Methods: Sixty radiographic images of varying quality were selected by retrospective review of dental records from a general dental practice. The images were sorted into groups to represent examples of radiographic quality (1=excellent, 2=diagnostically acceptable, 3=diagnostically compromised, 4=unacceptable). A 'gold standard' for radiological quality assessment was provided by a consultant in dental and maxillofacial radiology. A compact disc (CD) of the 60 images was produced and posted to a panel of 14 general dental practitioners (GDPs) who were asked to grade the quality of the images using two different systems on two occasions separated by a washout period of two days. The practitioners graded the radiographs using the currently accepted method for assessing radiographic quality (the three-grade NRPB system) and the alternative four-grade system. The quality of the images on the CD was deemed appropriate by the consultant.

Results: The strength of inter-assessor agreement was weaker when using a four-grade system in comparison to a three-grade system, reducing to a mean of k=0.51 from a mean of k=0.61 when using the original grading system. Mean agreement did not fall below 'moderate agreement' (k=0.41-0.60). Eleven of the 14 GDPs preferred the four-grade system.

Conclusion: The GDPs who participated in this study preferred the four-grade system to the three-grade system when comparing the quality of dental radiographs. However, the strength of agreement was weaker when using the four-grade system in comparison to the three-grade system. Overall, the results are equivocal. However, they should help to inform specialist dental radiology panels, should revision of quality grading be undertaken in the future.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
达到标准?牙科x光片质量等级的修改。
目的:比较改进后的(四级)牙科x线片质量评定体系与现行国家放射防护委员会(NRPB)的(三级)质量评定体系在评估人员内部和评估人员之间的一致性和操作者的偏好。方法:通过对一家普通牙科诊所的牙科记录进行回顾性审查,选择了60张不同质量的放射图像。图像被分成组,以代表放射学质量的例子(1=优秀,2=诊断可接受,3=诊断受损,4=不可接受)。牙科和颌面放射学顾问提供了放射质量评估的“金标准”。制作了60张图像的光盘(CD),并将其寄给14名普通牙科医生(GDPs)组成的小组,他们被要求在两次不同的情况下使用两种不同的系统对图像的质量进行评分,其中间隔为两天的洗脱期。从业人员使用目前公认的评估x线片质量的方法(三级NRPB系统)和备选的四级系统对x线片进行评分。顾问认为光盘上的图像质量合适。结果:与使用三级评分系统相比,使用四级评分系统时,评估者间协议的强度较弱,从使用原始评分系统时的k=0.61的平均值降低到k=0.51。平均一致性不低于“中等一致性”(k=0.41-0.60)。14个gdp中有11个更倾向于四级体系。结论:参与本研究的国民生产总值(gdp)在比较口腔x线片质量时更倾向于采用4级制,而不是3级制。然而,与三级制相比,使用四级制时,一致性的强度较弱。总的来说,结果是模棱两可的。但是,如果将来进行质量分级的修订,它们应该有助于告知专业牙科放射学小组。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reflections on the Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK) at 20 years. A patient's view of dentistry 20 years ago, now, and in 20 years' time. Primary Dental Care: past, present and future. Primary dental care: time to revise the definition? Prim Dent Care 2000. 7(3):93-96. Dental specialist lists: are they necessary?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1