根据英国甲状腺协会超声分级模型对甲状腺结节进行评分时的部门评分者间可靠性评估:是否存在重大分歧?

IF 0.8 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Ultrasound Pub Date : 2023-12-28 DOI:10.1177/1742271x231215500
Nabil Rtam
{"title":"根据英国甲状腺协会超声分级模型对甲状腺结节进行评分时的部门评分者间可靠性评估:是否存在重大分歧?","authors":"Nabil Rtam","doi":"10.1177/1742271x231215500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The British Thyroid Association Ultrasound-classification is a risk stratification model which grades thyroid nodules in U2–5 based on their sonographic appearance. Existence of variability between the ultrasound operators when U-scoring is reported in the literature with some evidence found in the author’s department. The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is significant disagreement in the department and identify potential reasons for variability. Eight operators, radiologists and sonographers, were recruited to grade 33 TNs and answer a tick box questionnaire using the British Thyroid Association lexicon. The inter-operator variability for the U-categories, indication for fine-needle aspiration biopsy and ultrasound features was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa and Gwet-AC1. The operators’ accuracy was measured against the most experienced operator in the department using Cohen’s kappa and percentage agreement. Fair agreement (Fleiss’ K = 0.21) was obtained between the participants when U-scoring (U2–5). Fair-to-moderate agreement was noted between sonographers ( K = 0.40). Significant variability was demonstrated between radiologists ( p > 0.05). Indication for fine-needle aspiration biopsy reached fair to almost substantial agreement (radiologists’ AC1 = 0.34, sonographers’ AC1 = 0.58, overall AC1 = 0.41). No significant variability measured for echogenicity ( K = 0.29), composition ( K = 0.33), shape ( K = 0.58), margin ( K = 0.45), halo ( K = 0.34) and vascularity ( K = 0.44). Accuracy reached fair agreement (mean Cohen’s K = 0.29) and moderate agreement (mean AC1 = 0.53) for the U-categories and fine-needle aspiration biopsy, respectively. Radiologists demonstrated lower accuracy. No significant inter-rater variability in U-scoring or recommending fine-needle aspiration biopsy was demonstrated between all the operators in the department. Radiologists showed significant variability in U-scoring and lower accuracy. Reliability and accuracy could be improved by addressing those problematic categories and features identified with this study.","PeriodicalId":23440,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the departmental inter-rater reliability when scoring thyroid nodules according to the British Thyroid Association Ultrasound-classification model: Is there significant disagreement?\",\"authors\":\"Nabil Rtam\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1742271x231215500\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The British Thyroid Association Ultrasound-classification is a risk stratification model which grades thyroid nodules in U2–5 based on their sonographic appearance. Existence of variability between the ultrasound operators when U-scoring is reported in the literature with some evidence found in the author’s department. The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is significant disagreement in the department and identify potential reasons for variability. Eight operators, radiologists and sonographers, were recruited to grade 33 TNs and answer a tick box questionnaire using the British Thyroid Association lexicon. The inter-operator variability for the U-categories, indication for fine-needle aspiration biopsy and ultrasound features was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa and Gwet-AC1. The operators’ accuracy was measured against the most experienced operator in the department using Cohen’s kappa and percentage agreement. Fair agreement (Fleiss’ K = 0.21) was obtained between the participants when U-scoring (U2–5). Fair-to-moderate agreement was noted between sonographers ( K = 0.40). Significant variability was demonstrated between radiologists ( p > 0.05). Indication for fine-needle aspiration biopsy reached fair to almost substantial agreement (radiologists’ AC1 = 0.34, sonographers’ AC1 = 0.58, overall AC1 = 0.41). No significant variability measured for echogenicity ( K = 0.29), composition ( K = 0.33), shape ( K = 0.58), margin ( K = 0.45), halo ( K = 0.34) and vascularity ( K = 0.44). Accuracy reached fair agreement (mean Cohen’s K = 0.29) and moderate agreement (mean AC1 = 0.53) for the U-categories and fine-needle aspiration biopsy, respectively. Radiologists demonstrated lower accuracy. No significant inter-rater variability in U-scoring or recommending fine-needle aspiration biopsy was demonstrated between all the operators in the department. Radiologists showed significant variability in U-scoring and lower accuracy. Reliability and accuracy could be improved by addressing those problematic categories and features identified with this study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23440,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ultrasound\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ultrasound\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1742271x231215500\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1742271x231215500","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英国甲状腺协会超声分级是一种风险分层模型,根据甲状腺结节的声像图外观将其分为U2-5级。有文献报道,超声操作人员在进行 U 级评分时存在差异,作者所在科室也发现了一些证据。本研究的目的是调查该科室是否存在明显的分歧,并找出产生差异的潜在原因。研究人员招募了八名操作员,包括放射科医生和超声技师,对 33 例 TN 进行评分,并使用英国甲状腺协会词典回答打勾问卷。使用 Fleiss' kappa 和 Gwet-AC1 评估了操作员之间在 U 分类、细针穿刺活检指征和超声特征方面的差异性。使用 Cohen's kappa 和一致性百分比来衡量操作员与科室内最有经验的操作员之间的准确性。在进行 U 评分(U2-5)时,参与者之间的一致性尚可(Fleiss' K = 0.21)。超声技师之间的一致性为中等偏上(K = 0.40)。放射医师之间存在显著差异(P > 0.05)。细针穿刺活检的适应症达到相当到基本一致(放射医师的 AC1 = 0.34,超声技师的 AC1 = 0.58,总体 AC1 = 0.41)。在回声(K = 0.29)、成分(K = 0.33)、形状(K = 0.58)、边缘(K = 0.45)、光晕(K = 0.34)和血管(K = 0.44)方面均无明显差异。U类和细针穿刺活检的准确性分别达到了相当一致(平均Cohen's K = 0.29)和中等一致(平均AC1 = 0.53)。放射医师的准确性较低。该科室所有操作人员之间在 U 评分或建议进行细针穿刺活检方面没有明显的评分者间差异。放射科医生在 U 值评分方面存在明显差异,准确性较低。通过解决本研究发现的问题类别和特征,可以提高可靠性和准确性。
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
Evaluation of the departmental inter-rater reliability when scoring thyroid nodules according to the British Thyroid Association Ultrasound-classification model: Is there significant disagreement?
The British Thyroid Association Ultrasound-classification is a risk stratification model which grades thyroid nodules in U2–5 based on their sonographic appearance. Existence of variability between the ultrasound operators when U-scoring is reported in the literature with some evidence found in the author’s department. The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is significant disagreement in the department and identify potential reasons for variability. Eight operators, radiologists and sonographers, were recruited to grade 33 TNs and answer a tick box questionnaire using the British Thyroid Association lexicon. The inter-operator variability for the U-categories, indication for fine-needle aspiration biopsy and ultrasound features was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa and Gwet-AC1. The operators’ accuracy was measured against the most experienced operator in the department using Cohen’s kappa and percentage agreement. Fair agreement (Fleiss’ K = 0.21) was obtained between the participants when U-scoring (U2–5). Fair-to-moderate agreement was noted between sonographers ( K = 0.40). Significant variability was demonstrated between radiologists ( p > 0.05). Indication for fine-needle aspiration biopsy reached fair to almost substantial agreement (radiologists’ AC1 = 0.34, sonographers’ AC1 = 0.58, overall AC1 = 0.41). No significant variability measured for echogenicity ( K = 0.29), composition ( K = 0.33), shape ( K = 0.58), margin ( K = 0.45), halo ( K = 0.34) and vascularity ( K = 0.44). Accuracy reached fair agreement (mean Cohen’s K = 0.29) and moderate agreement (mean AC1 = 0.53) for the U-categories and fine-needle aspiration biopsy, respectively. Radiologists demonstrated lower accuracy. No significant inter-rater variability in U-scoring or recommending fine-needle aspiration biopsy was demonstrated between all the operators in the department. Radiologists showed significant variability in U-scoring and lower accuracy. Reliability and accuracy could be improved by addressing those problematic categories and features identified with this study.
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
Ultrasound
Ultrasound RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: Ultrasound is the official journal of the British Medical Ultrasound Society (BMUS), a multidisciplinary, charitable society comprising radiologists, obstetricians, sonographers, physicists and veterinarians amongst others.
期刊最新文献
Two case reports of triple ectopic: Literature review of incidence, risk factors and management of recurrent ectopic pregnancy. Beyond the hernia in groin ultrasound. Investigation of artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support system's performance in reducing the fine needle aspiration rate of thyroid nodules: A pilot study. Advanced multimodal ultrasound for pre-operative assessment of skin tumours: A case series. Diagnostic accuracy of strain cervical elastography as a predictor for preterm delivery: A single tertiary care centre study.
×
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