4.7 Article

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

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12175470

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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