4.7 Article

Improving Interrater Agreement About Brain Microbleeds Development of the Brain Observer MicroBleed Scale (BOMBS)

期刊

STROKE
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 94-99

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.526996

关键词

brain microbleed; rating scale; interrater reliability; classification; stroke

资金

  1. ADRINORD [EA 2691]
  2. UK Medical Research Council funded [G108/613]
  3. The Wellcome Trust funded [075611]
  4. Clinician Scientist Award [WT063668MF]
  5. NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment Panel funded [96/08/01]
  6. Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Executive [CZB/4/281]
  7. MRC [G108/613] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Medical Research Council [G0700704B, G108/613] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-If the diagnostic and prognostic significance of brain microbleeds (BMBs) are to be investigated and used for these purposes in clinical practice, observer variation in BMB assessment must be minimized. Methods-Two doctors used a pilot rating scale to describe the number and distribution of BMBs (round, low-signal lesions, <10 mm diameter on gradient echo MRI) among 264 adults with stroke or TIA. They were blinded to clinical data and their counterpart's ratings. Disagreements were adjudicated by a third observer, who informed the development of a new Brain Observer MicroBleed Scale (BOMBS), which was tested in a separate cohort of 156 adults with stroke. Results-In the pilot study, agreement about the presence of >= 1 BMB in any location was moderate (kappa=0.44; 95% CI, 0.32-0.56), but agreement was worse in lobar locations (kappa=0.44; 95% CI, 0.30-0.58) than in deep (kappa=0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.76) or posterior fossa locations (kappa=0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.84). Using BOMBS, agreement about the presence of >= 1 BMB improved in any location (kappa=0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.86) and in lobar locations (kappa=0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-0.97). Conclusion-Interrater reliability concerning the presence of BMBs was moderate to good, and could be improved with the use of the BOMBS rating scale, which takes into account the main sources of interrater disagreement identified by our pilot scale. (Stroke. 2009;40:94-99.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据