Interrater agreement in headache diagnoses

Q3 Medicine Cephalalgia Reports Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1177/25158163221115391
M. Neumeier, Miranda Stattmann, S. Wegener, A. Gantenbein, H. Pohl
{"title":"Interrater agreement in headache diagnoses","authors":"M. Neumeier, Miranda Stattmann, S. Wegener, A. Gantenbein, H. Pohl","doi":"10.1177/25158163221115391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Diagnosing headache disorders comprises the collection and interpretation of information. This study estimates agreement and bias in the latter. Methods: Physicians and medical students diagnosed eight patients’ headaches using the International Classification of Headache Disorders. We calculated Cohen’s Kappa for all participants and subgroups (board-certified neurologists, physicians working in a neurology department). Moreover, we asked how sure they felt about their diagnoses. Finally, participants estimated the number of different headache diagnoses a patient receives when consulting many physicians for the same headache and indicated the highest acceptable number. Results: The data of 63 participants entered the analysis, of whom 18 were neurologists (18/63, 28.6%), and 41 were currently working at a neurology clinic (41/63, 66.7%). Cohen’s Kappa decreased (0.706, 0.566, and 0.408) with increasing levels of the classification hierarchy. Interrater agreement was highest among neurologists. Physicians not working in a neurology clinic tended to diagnose secondary headaches more often were less confident about their diagnoses. Conclusions: Physicians with less experience in headache disorders struggle more to diagnose headaches than neurologists do; they suspect secondary headaches, disagree, and feel insecure more often. Thus, interpreting a headache history is prone to error and bias.","PeriodicalId":9702,"journal":{"name":"Cephalalgia Reports","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cephalalgia Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25158163221115391","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Diagnosing headache disorders comprises the collection and interpretation of information. This study estimates agreement and bias in the latter. Methods: Physicians and medical students diagnosed eight patients’ headaches using the International Classification of Headache Disorders. We calculated Cohen’s Kappa for all participants and subgroups (board-certified neurologists, physicians working in a neurology department). Moreover, we asked how sure they felt about their diagnoses. Finally, participants estimated the number of different headache diagnoses a patient receives when consulting many physicians for the same headache and indicated the highest acceptable number. Results: The data of 63 participants entered the analysis, of whom 18 were neurologists (18/63, 28.6%), and 41 were currently working at a neurology clinic (41/63, 66.7%). Cohen’s Kappa decreased (0.706, 0.566, and 0.408) with increasing levels of the classification hierarchy. Interrater agreement was highest among neurologists. Physicians not working in a neurology clinic tended to diagnose secondary headaches more often were less confident about their diagnoses. Conclusions: Physicians with less experience in headache disorders struggle more to diagnose headaches than neurologists do; they suspect secondary headaches, disagree, and feel insecure more often. Thus, interpreting a headache history is prone to error and bias.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
头痛诊断中的询问者一致性
背景:头痛疾病的诊断包括信息的收集和解释。这项研究估计了后者的一致性和偏倚。方法:医生和医学生使用国际头痛障碍分类法诊断了8名患者的头痛。我们计算了所有参与者和亚组(委员会认证的神经学家、神经科医生)的Cohen Kappa。此外,我们询问他们对自己的诊断有多确信。最后,参与者估计了患者在咨询许多医生治疗同一头痛时收到的不同头痛诊断的数量,并指出了可接受的最高数量。结果:63名参与者的数据进入分析,其中18人是神经学家(18/63,28.6%),41人目前在神经科诊所工作(41/63,66.7%)。Cohen Kappa随着分类层次的增加而降低(0.706,0.566和0.408)。在神经学家中,询问者的一致性最高。不在神经科诊所工作的医生往往更倾向于诊断继发性头痛,但他们对自己的诊断缺乏信心。结论:在头痛病症方面经验较少的医生比神经科医生更难诊断头痛;他们怀疑是继发性头痛,意见不一致,更经常感到不安全。因此,解释头痛病史容易出现错误和偏见。
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
Cephalalgia Reports
Cephalalgia Reports Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
Protocol of a cross-sectional, multicentre and multidisciplinary study describing phenotype and burden of a midfacial segment pain Paranoid psychosis after a single parenteral dose of indomethacin administered for headache diagnosis: A case and review of the literature Extended regular use of kinetic oscillation stimulation (KOS) in refractory chronic migraine: case report of a first, single-subject experience Corrigendum to “Eptinezumab administered intravenously, subcutaneously, or intramuscularly in healthy subjects and/or patients with migraine: Early development studies” A century of bruxism research in top-ranking medical journals
×
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