电子子宫图对宫内粘连评分标准化的可靠性。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of minimally invasive gynecology Pub Date : 2024-12-30 DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2024.12.016
Laura Miquel, Aubert Agostini, Anderson Loundou, Salima Daoud, Elisabetta Mazza, Malcolm G Munro, Patrice Crochet
{"title":"电子子宫图对宫内粘连评分标准化的可靠性。","authors":"Laura Miquel, Aubert Agostini, Anderson Loundou, Salima Daoud, Elisabetta Mazza, Malcolm G Munro, Patrice Crochet","doi":"10.1016/j.jmig.2024.12.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study objective: </strong>To study the inter-rater reliability of an electronic complementary uterine diagram (electronic American Fertility Society [eAFS] freely available at https://bit.ly/eAFS-score) in comparison with the conventional American Fertility Society (cAFS) intrauterine adhesion (IUA) scoring system. As a secondary aim, we wanted to assess the intra-rater reliability of these tools.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was an observational cross-over study with a nested test-retest design.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Self-identified gynecologists who performed diagnostic hysteroscopy as part of their routine practice were asked to score IUA on 7 preselected videos using both cAFS and eAFS tools in 2 separate rounds. The order of use of tools was determined at random. Gynecologists who agreed to be involved in a third round were asked to use the tool they were allocated to in the first round to assess intra-rater variability.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>No patients were recruited for the purpose of this study.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Inter-rater agreement between evaluators when using eAFS and cAFS for IUA scoring. Overall, the inter-rater agreement was fair (0.25; confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.34) for cAFS and moderate (0.53; CI, 0.48-0.58) for the eAFS tool. The biggest difference between both tools was seen in the \"extent of cavity involved\" component, which was fair (0.28; CI, 0.21-0.35) vs substantial (0.71; CI, 0.64-0.78) for cAFS vs eAFS, respectively. Moreover, agreement coefficients were comparable among \"expert\" and \"non-expert\" evaluators with the use of the eAFS tool. In addition, intra-rater perfect agreement was higher with the use of eAFS than cAFS (38% vs 32.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The current AFS IUA scoring system has fair inter-rater agreement. However, using a complementary electronic uterine diagram increased this agreement from fair to moderate overall and from fair to substantial in the \"extent of adhesions\" domain of the tool. The use of the electronic diagram also improved inter-rater agreement among non-experts making it comparable with that of experts.</p>","PeriodicalId":16397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of an Electronic Uterine Diagram to Standardize Intrauterine Adhesion Scoring.\",\"authors\":\"Laura Miquel, Aubert Agostini, Anderson Loundou, Salima Daoud, Elisabetta Mazza, Malcolm G Munro, Patrice Crochet\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmig.2024.12.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study objective: </strong>To study the inter-rater reliability of an electronic complementary uterine diagram (electronic American Fertility Society [eAFS] freely available at https://bit.ly/eAFS-score) in comparison with the conventional American Fertility Society (cAFS) intrauterine adhesion (IUA) scoring system. As a secondary aim, we wanted to assess the intra-rater reliability of these tools.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was an observational cross-over study with a nested test-retest design.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Self-identified gynecologists who performed diagnostic hysteroscopy as part of their routine practice were asked to score IUA on 7 preselected videos using both cAFS and eAFS tools in 2 separate rounds. The order of use of tools was determined at random. Gynecologists who agreed to be involved in a third round were asked to use the tool they were allocated to in the first round to assess intra-rater variability.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>No patients were recruited for the purpose of this study.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Inter-rater agreement between evaluators when using eAFS and cAFS for IUA scoring. Overall, the inter-rater agreement was fair (0.25; confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.34) for cAFS and moderate (0.53; CI, 0.48-0.58) for the eAFS tool. The biggest difference between both tools was seen in the \\\"extent of cavity involved\\\" component, which was fair (0.28; CI, 0.21-0.35) vs substantial (0.71; CI, 0.64-0.78) for cAFS vs eAFS, respectively. Moreover, agreement coefficients were comparable among \\\"expert\\\" and \\\"non-expert\\\" evaluators with the use of the eAFS tool. In addition, intra-rater perfect agreement was higher with the use of eAFS than cAFS (38% vs 32.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The current AFS IUA scoring system has fair inter-rater agreement. However, using a complementary electronic uterine diagram increased this agreement from fair to moderate overall and from fair to substantial in the \\\"extent of adhesions\\\" domain of the tool. The use of the electronic diagram also improved inter-rater agreement among non-experts making it comparable with that of experts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2024.12.016\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2024.12.016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的:研究电子补充子宫图(eAFS)与传统美国生育学会宫内粘连(IUA)评分系统(cAFS)的可靠性。作为次要目标,我们想评估这些工具的内部可靠性。设计:这是一项观察性交叉研究,采用嵌套测试再测试设计。设置:自我认定的妇科医生进行诊断性宫腔镜检查作为其常规实践的一部分,被要求在两轮中使用cAFS和eAFS工具对7个预选视频进行IUA评分。工具的使用顺序是随机确定的。同意参与第三轮的妇科医生被要求使用他们在第一轮中分配到的工具来评估内部变异性。患者:本研究未招募患者。测量:当使用eAFS和cAFS进行IUA评分时,评估者之间的评分一致性。主要结果:总体而言,评价间一致性为公平(cAFS为0.25 [CI 0.17 - 0.34]), eAFS工具为中等(0.53 [CI 0.48 -0.58])。两种工具之间最大的差异是“受累腔的范围”成分,cAFS和eAFS的差异分别为一般(0.28 [CI 0.21 - 0.35])和大量(0.71 [CI 0.64 - 0.78])。此外,使用eAFS工具,“专家”和“非专家”评估者之间的一致性系数可比较。此外,与使用cAFS相比,使用eAFS的评分者内部完全一致性更高(38%对32.5%)。结论:目前的AFS IUA评分系统具有公平的评分员间一致性。然而,使用互补的电子子宫图将这种一致性从一般提高到中等,在工具的“粘连程度”领域从一般提高到大量。电子图表的使用也改善了非专家之间的评价者之间的协议,使其与专家的协议相当。
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
Reliability of an Electronic Uterine Diagram to Standardize Intrauterine Adhesion Scoring.

Study objective: To study the inter-rater reliability of an electronic complementary uterine diagram (electronic American Fertility Society [eAFS] freely available at https://bit.ly/eAFS-score) in comparison with the conventional American Fertility Society (cAFS) intrauterine adhesion (IUA) scoring system. As a secondary aim, we wanted to assess the intra-rater reliability of these tools.

Design: This was an observational cross-over study with a nested test-retest design.

Setting: Self-identified gynecologists who performed diagnostic hysteroscopy as part of their routine practice were asked to score IUA on 7 preselected videos using both cAFS and eAFS tools in 2 separate rounds. The order of use of tools was determined at random. Gynecologists who agreed to be involved in a third round were asked to use the tool they were allocated to in the first round to assess intra-rater variability.

Patients: No patients were recruited for the purpose of this study.

Measurements and main results: Inter-rater agreement between evaluators when using eAFS and cAFS for IUA scoring. Overall, the inter-rater agreement was fair (0.25; confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.34) for cAFS and moderate (0.53; CI, 0.48-0.58) for the eAFS tool. The biggest difference between both tools was seen in the "extent of cavity involved" component, which was fair (0.28; CI, 0.21-0.35) vs substantial (0.71; CI, 0.64-0.78) for cAFS vs eAFS, respectively. Moreover, agreement coefficients were comparable among "expert" and "non-expert" evaluators with the use of the eAFS tool. In addition, intra-rater perfect agreement was higher with the use of eAFS than cAFS (38% vs 32.5%).

Conclusion: The current AFS IUA scoring system has fair inter-rater agreement. However, using a complementary electronic uterine diagram increased this agreement from fair to moderate overall and from fair to substantial in the "extent of adhesions" domain of the tool. The use of the electronic diagram also improved inter-rater agreement among non-experts making it comparable with that of experts.

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
5.00
自引率
7.30%
发文量
272
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, formerly titled The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, is an international clinical forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas, findings and techniques relevant to gynecologic endoscopy and other minimally invasive procedures. The Journal, which presents research, clinical opinions and case reports from the brightest minds in gynecologic surgery, is an authoritative source informing practicing physicians of the latest, cutting-edge developments occurring in this emerging field.
期刊最新文献
Insights from the Inaugural JMIG Associate Editors. Cheek acupuncture reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery: A randomized controlled trial. Preoperative Medication for Ovarian Endometrioma Reduces Cyst Size and PainBut Not rASRM score. Time for an education revamp? A nationwide survey of Fellowship in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery program directors' and fellows' didactics experiences. Presidential address presented at the 53rd AAGL Global Congress in New Orleans on the 17th of November 2024.
×
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