4.6 Review

Assessing Agreement When Agreement Is Hard to Assess-The Agatston Score for Coronary Calcification

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12122993

关键词

agreement; Bland-Altman; calcium; computed tomography; difference plot; heart; method comparison; quantitative; repeatability; reproducibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article reviews the reproducibility of the Agatston score and points out the difficulties in deriving reliable limits of agreement for the score. It also highlights the recent efforts to improve the analysis and reporting of method comparison studies, emphasizing the need for increased attention to this field in the future.
Method comparison studies comprised simple scatterplots of paired measurements, a 45-degree line as benchmark, and correlation coefficients up to the advent of Bland-Altman analysis in the 1980s. The Agatston score for coronary calcification is based on computed tomography of the heart, and it originated in 1990. A peculiarity of the Agatston score is the often-observed skewed distribution in screening populations. As the Agatston score has manifested itself in preventive cardiology, it is of interest to investigate how reproducibility of the Agatston score has been established. This review is based on literature findings indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed before 20 November 2021. Out of 503 identified articles, 49 papers were included in this review. Sample sizes were highly variable (10-9761), the main focus comprised intra- and interrater as well as intra- and interscanner variability assessments. Simple analysis tools such as scatterplots and correlation coefficients were successively supplemented by first difference, later Bland-Altman plots; however, only very few publications were capable of deriving Limits of Agreement that fit the observed data visually in a convincing way. Moreover, several attempts have been made in the recent past to improve the analysis and reporting of method comparison studies. These warrant increased attention in the future.

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

4.6
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