2021 年 AAGL 子宫内膜异位症分类的观察者间再现性。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Pub Date : 2024-06-19 DOI:10.1111/ajo.13851
Jason Nicholas Mak, Cansu Uzuner, Mercedes Espada, Allie Eathorn, Shannon Reid, Mathew Leonardi, Mike Armour, George Stanley Condous
{"title":"2021 年 AAGL 子宫内膜异位症分类的观察者间再现性。","authors":"Jason Nicholas Mak, Cansu Uzuner, Mercedes Espada, Allie Eathorn, Shannon Reid, Mathew Leonardi, Mike Armour, George Stanley Condous","doi":"10.1111/ajo.13851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inter-observer agreement for the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system has not been described. Its predecessor staging system, the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (rASRM), has historically demonstrated poor inter-observer agreement.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We aimed to determine the inter-observer agreement performance of the AAGL 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system, and compare this with the rASRM staging system.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A database of 317 patients with coded surgical data was retrospectively analysed. Three independent observers allocated AAGL surgical stages (1-4), twice. Observers made their own interpretation of how to apply the tool in the first staging allocation. Consensus rules were then developed for a second staging allocation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>First staging allocation: odds ratio (OR) (and 95% CI) for observer 1 to score higher than observer 2 was 8.08 (5.12-12.76). Observer 1 to score higher than observer 3 was 12.98 (7.99-21.11) and observer 2 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.61 (1.03-2.51). This represents poor agreement. Second staging allocation (after consensus): OR for observer 1 to score higher than observer 2 was 1.14 (0.64-2.03), observer 1 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.81 (0.99-3.28) and observer 2 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.59 (0.87-2.89). This represents good agreement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest that in its current format the AAGL 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system has poor inter-observer agreement, not superior to the rASRM staging system. However, performance improved when additional measures were taken to simplify and clarify areas of ambiguity in interpreting the staging system.</p>","PeriodicalId":55429,"journal":{"name":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter-observer reproducibility of the 2021 AAGL Endometriosis Classification.\",\"authors\":\"Jason Nicholas Mak, Cansu Uzuner, Mercedes Espada, Allie Eathorn, Shannon Reid, Mathew Leonardi, Mike Armour, George Stanley Condous\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajo.13851\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inter-observer agreement for the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system has not been described. Its predecessor staging system, the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (rASRM), has historically demonstrated poor inter-observer agreement.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We aimed to determine the inter-observer agreement performance of the AAGL 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system, and compare this with the rASRM staging system.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A database of 317 patients with coded surgical data was retrospectively analysed. Three independent observers allocated AAGL surgical stages (1-4), twice. Observers made their own interpretation of how to apply the tool in the first staging allocation. Consensus rules were then developed for a second staging allocation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>First staging allocation: odds ratio (OR) (and 95% CI) for observer 1 to score higher than observer 2 was 8.08 (5.12-12.76). Observer 1 to score higher than observer 3 was 12.98 (7.99-21.11) and observer 2 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.61 (1.03-2.51). This represents poor agreement. Second staging allocation (after consensus): OR for observer 1 to score higher than observer 2 was 1.14 (0.64-2.03), observer 1 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.81 (0.99-3.28) and observer 2 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.59 (0.87-2.89). This represents good agreement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest that in its current format the AAGL 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system has poor inter-observer agreement, not superior to the rASRM staging system. However, performance improved when additional measures were taken to simplify and clarify areas of ambiguity in interpreting the staging system.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13851\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13851","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:美国妇科腹腔镜医师协会(AAGL)2021子宫内膜异位症分类分期系统的观察者间一致性尚未得到描述。目的:我们旨在确定美国妇科腹腔镜医师协会(AAGL)2021子宫内膜异位症分类分期系统的观察者间一致性,并将其与美国生殖医学会(rASRM)分期系统进行比较:回顾性分析了317名患者的编码手术数据。三名独立观察者对 AAGL 手术分期(1-4 期)进行了两次分配。在第一次分期时,观察者对如何应用该工具做出了自己的解释。然后为第二次分期制定了共识规则:第一次分期分配:观察者 1 的评分高于观察者 2 的几率比(OR)(和 95% CI)为 8.08(5.12-12.76)。观察者 1 的评分高于观察者 3 的概率为 12.98(7.99-21.11),观察者 2 的评分高于观察者 3 的概率为 1.61(1.03-2.51)。这表明一致性较差。第二次分期分配(达成共识后):观察者 1 的评分高于观察者 2 的 OR 值为 1.14(0.64-2.03),观察者 1 的评分高于观察者 3 的 OR 值为 1.81(0.99-3.28),观察者 2 的评分高于观察者 3 的 OR 值为 1.59(0.87-2.89)。结论:这些研究结果表明,AAGL 2021 子宫内膜异位症分类分期系统目前的形式在观察者之间的一致性较差,并不优于 rASRM 分期系统。然而,在采取额外措施简化和澄清分期系统解释中的模糊之处后,该系统的表现有所改善。
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 reproducibility of the 2021 AAGL Endometriosis Classification.

Background: Inter-observer agreement for the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system has not been described. Its predecessor staging system, the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (rASRM), has historically demonstrated poor inter-observer agreement.

Aims: We aimed to determine the inter-observer agreement performance of the AAGL 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system, and compare this with the rASRM staging system.

Materials and methods: A database of 317 patients with coded surgical data was retrospectively analysed. Three independent observers allocated AAGL surgical stages (1-4), twice. Observers made their own interpretation of how to apply the tool in the first staging allocation. Consensus rules were then developed for a second staging allocation.

Results: First staging allocation: odds ratio (OR) (and 95% CI) for observer 1 to score higher than observer 2 was 8.08 (5.12-12.76). Observer 1 to score higher than observer 3 was 12.98 (7.99-21.11) and observer 2 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.61 (1.03-2.51). This represents poor agreement. Second staging allocation (after consensus): OR for observer 1 to score higher than observer 2 was 1.14 (0.64-2.03), observer 1 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.81 (0.99-3.28) and observer 2 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.59 (0.87-2.89). This represents good agreement.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that in its current format the AAGL 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system has poor inter-observer agreement, not superior to the rASRM staging system. However, performance improved when additional measures were taken to simplify and clarify areas of ambiguity in interpreting the staging system.

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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
165
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ANZJOG) is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) and the RANZCOG Research foundation. ANZJOG aims to provide a medium for the publication of original contributions to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of obstetrics and gynaecology and related disciplines. Articles are peer reviewed by clinicians or researchers expert in the field of the submitted work. From time to time the journal will also publish printed abstracts from the RANZCOG Annual Scientific Meeting and meetings of relevant special interest groups, where the accepted abstracts have undergone the journals peer review acceptance process.
期刊最新文献
High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and adenocarcinoma in situ with a negative HPV cervical screening test. The role of HPV-ISH testing: A retrospective review. Haemorrhagic and thromboembolic outcomes in pregnant patients with mechanical heart valves who undergo interruption of anticoagulation for birth - A case series. Letter to the Editor. Response to letter to the editor re: Worth waiting for? Do vaginal swabs alter empirical clinical management in obstetrics and gynaecology: A retrospective case-series and activity-based costing of the vaginal swab.
×
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