4.6 Article

Interobserver variability in the evaluation of primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation: impact of radiological training and analysis of discordant cases

Journal

RADIOLOGIA MEDICA
Volume 127, Issue 2, Pages 145-153

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-021-01438-5

Keywords

Lung transplantation; Primary graft dysfunction; Chest X-ray; Interobserver variability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study demonstrates that specific training can significantly improve interobserver agreement in the evaluation of chest X-rays for the diagnosis of PGD after lung transplantation. Disagreements among observers are mainly attributed to the overestimation of peribronchial thickening.
Purpose Radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of primary graft dysfunction (PGD) after lung transplantation are nonspecific and can lead to misinterpretation. The primary aim of our study was to assess the interobserver agreement in the evaluation of chest X-rays (CXRs) for PGD diagnosis and to establish whether a specific training could have an impact on concordance rates. Secondary aim was to analyze causes of interobserver discordances. Material and methods We retrospectively enrolled 164 patients who received bilateral lung transplantation at our institution, between February 2013 and December 2019. Three radiologists independently reviewed postoperative CXRs and classified them as suggestive or not for PGD. Two of the Raters performed a specific training before the beginning of the study. A senior thoracic radiologist subsequently analyzed all discordant cases among the Raters with the best agreement. Statistical analysis to calculate interobserver variability was percent agreement, Cohen's kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient. Results A total of 473 CXRs were evaluated. A very high concordance among the two trained Raters, 1 and 2, was found (K = 0.90, ICC = 0.90), while a poorer agreement was found in the other two pairings (Raters 1 and 3: K = 0.34, ICC = 0.40; Raters 2 and 3: K = 0.35, ICC = 0.40). The main cause of disagreement (52.4% of discordant cases) between Raters 1 and 2 was the overestimation of peribronchial thickening in the absence of unequivocal bilateral lung opacities or the incorrect assessment of unilateral alterations. Conclusion To properly identify PGD, it is recommended for radiologists to receive an adequate specific training.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available