关于放射学文章证据水平的观察员间协议

C. García-Villar , J.M. Plasencia-Martínez , M.T. Gutiérrez-Amares , J.M. García-Santos
{"title":"关于放射学文章证据水平的观察员间协议","authors":"C. García-Villar ,&nbsp;J.M. Plasencia-Martínez ,&nbsp;M.T. Gutiérrez-Amares ,&nbsp;J.M. García-Santos","doi":"10.1016/j.rxeng.2023.08.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Levels of evidence (LE) are established through a hierarchical classification of studies according to their design. At present, there are many heterogeneous LE classifications, and this hampers their applicability. Our study aims to identify which LE classification has the best interobserver concordance for radiology<span> articles. For this purpose, an interobserver agreement analysis were performed on 105 original articles applying two NE scales (Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine<span> (OCEBM) y National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)). The inter-rater agreement of the LE assigned after reading the abstracts was good when using the OCEBM scale (</span></span></span><em>K</em> = 0.679), and somewhat lower with the NHMRC (<em>K</em> = 0.577 -moderate-). All differences were statistically significant (<em>P</em> &lt; .000). So, in conclusion, of the two scales analysed (OCEBM and NHMRC), the OCEBM led to the strongest level of inter-rater agreement.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94185,"journal":{"name":"Radiologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter-observer agreement on levels of evidence in radiology articles\",\"authors\":\"C. García-Villar ,&nbsp;J.M. Plasencia-Martínez ,&nbsp;M.T. Gutiérrez-Amares ,&nbsp;J.M. García-Santos\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rxeng.2023.08.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>Levels of evidence (LE) are established through a hierarchical classification of studies according to their design. At present, there are many heterogeneous LE classifications, and this hampers their applicability. Our study aims to identify which LE classification has the best interobserver concordance for radiology<span> articles. For this purpose, an interobserver agreement analysis were performed on 105 original articles applying two NE scales (Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine<span> (OCEBM) y National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)). The inter-rater agreement of the LE assigned after reading the abstracts was good when using the OCEBM scale (</span></span></span><em>K</em> = 0.679), and somewhat lower with the NHMRC (<em>K</em> = 0.577 -moderate-). All differences were statistically significant (<em>P</em> &lt; .000). So, in conclusion, of the two scales analysed (OCEBM and NHMRC), the OCEBM led to the strongest level of inter-rater agreement.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94185,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiologia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173510723001325\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173510723001325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

证据水平(LE)是根据其设计通过研究的分层分类建立的。目前,存在许多异构的LE分类,这阻碍了它们的适用性。我们的研究旨在确定哪种LE分类在放射学文章中具有最佳的观察者间一致性。为此,采用两种NE量表(牛津循证医学中心(OCEBM)和国家卫生与医学研究委员会(NHMRC))对105篇原创文章进行了观察者间一致性分析。使用OCEBM量表(K = 0.679)时,阅读摘要后分配的LE的评分间一致性较好,使用NHMRC量表(K = 0.577 -moderate-)时,评分间一致性略低。差异均有统计学意义(P < .000)。因此,总而言之,在所分析的两个量表(OCEBM和NHMRC)中,OCEBM导致了最强烈的等级间一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Inter-observer agreement on levels of evidence in radiology articles

Levels of evidence (LE) are established through a hierarchical classification of studies according to their design. At present, there are many heterogeneous LE classifications, and this hampers their applicability. Our study aims to identify which LE classification has the best interobserver concordance for radiology articles. For this purpose, an interobserver agreement analysis were performed on 105 original articles applying two NE scales (Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) y National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)). The inter-rater agreement of the LE assigned after reading the abstracts was good when using the OCEBM scale (K = 0.679), and somewhat lower with the NHMRC (K = 0.577 -moderate-). All differences were statistically significant (P < .000). So, in conclusion, of the two scales analysed (OCEBM and NHMRC), the OCEBM led to the strongest level of inter-rater agreement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Usefulness of the superior orbitomeatal line without the lens included in the scan range at different tube voltage during pediatric head CT Magnetic resonance imaging findings for inflammatory mastitis of unknown etiology Updating the rules for Scientific Letters and Brief Reports Contrast-enhanced mammography and preoperative magnetic seed placement in breast cancer patients for the detection of residual disease following neoadjuvant systemic therapy The legal regulation of artificial intelligence in the European Union: A practical guide for radiologists
×
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