4.7 Article

Multicenter comparison of the interobserver agreement of standard EUS scoring and Rosemont classification scoring for diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 71, Issue 3, Pages 519-526

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.10.043

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Solvay Parmaceuticals, Marietta, GA
  2. ChiRhoClin, Inc, Burtonsville, MD
  3. Olympus America, Centerville, PA
  4. Cook Endoscopy, Winston-Salem, NC
  5. RedPath Integrated Pathology, Inc, Pittsburgh, PA
  6. Olympus America, Boston Scientific, Nattick, MA
  7. ConMed, Utica, NY
  8. Alveolus, Charlotte, NC
  9. Ethicon Endosurgery, Cincinnati, OH

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: EUS has less than optimal interobserver agreement for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis. The newly developed Rosemont consensus scoring system includes weighted criteria and stricter definitions for individual features. Objective: The primary aim was to compare the interobserver agreement of standard and Rosemont scoring. Setting: Multiple tertiary-Care institutions. Intervention: Fifty EUS videos were interpreted by 14 experts. Each expert interpreted the videos oil two occasions: First, the videos were read by using standard scoring (9 criteria). Second, after viewing a presentation of the Rosemont classification, the same experts re-read the Videos by using Rosemont scoring. Main Outcome Measurements: Fleiss' kappa (K) statistics are reported with 95% confidence intervals (0). Results: The interobserver agreement was substantial (K = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.77]) for Rosemont scoring and moderate (K = 0.54 [95% CI, 0.44-0.66]) for standard scoring; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.12). Limitations: The sample size does not allow detection of differences in K of <0.25. Conclusion: Use of the Rosemont classification did not significantly increase interobserver agreement for EUS diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis compared with standard scoring. (Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:519-26.)

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