4.7 Article

Inter-Rater Reliability of Collateral Status Assessment Based on CT Angiography: A Retrospective Study of Middle Cerebral Artery Ischaemic Stroke

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 12, Issue 17, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12175470

Keywords

ischaemic stroke; CT angiography; collateral status; collateral score; scoring; inter-rater reliability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The importance of evaluating the collateral status in patients with ischaemic stroke has been emphasized. However, the reliability of different assessment scales is limited. This study investigated the inter-rater reliability of three scales and found moderate consistency among them, but no clear best scale could be determined.
The importance of assessing the collateral status (CS) in patients with ischaemic stroke (IS) has repeatedly been emphasised in clinical guidelines. Various publications offer qualitative or semiquantitative scales with gradations corresponding to the different extents of the collaterals, visualised mostly on the basis of CTA images. However, information on their inter-rater reliability is limited. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the inter-rater reliability of the scales for collateral assessment. CTA images of 158 patients in the acute period of IS were used in the study. The assessment of CS was performed by two experts using three methodologies: the modified Tan scale, the Miteff scale, and the Rosenthal scale. Cohen's kappa, weighted kappa and Krippendorff's alpha were used as reliability measures. For the modified Tan scale and the Miteff and Rosenthal scales, the weighted kappa values were 0.72, 0.49 and 0.59, respectively. Although the best measure of consistency was found for the modified Tan scale, no statistically significant differences were revealed among the scales. The impact of the CS on the degree of neurological deficit at discharge was shown for the modified Tan and Rosenthal scales. In conclusion, the analysis showed a moderate inter-rater reliability of the three scales, but was not able to distinguish the best one among them.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available