Cargando…

The reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL)

BACKGROUND: The aim of this project was to investigate the reliability of a new 11-item quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). The tool was tested on studies reporting the reliability of any physical examination procedure. The reliability of physical examination is a c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lucas, Nicholas, Macaskill, Petra, Irwig, Les, Moran, Robert, Rickards, Luke, Turner, Robin, Bogduk, Nikolai
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847619/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24010406
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-111
_version_ 1782293632788725760
author Lucas, Nicholas
Macaskill, Petra
Irwig, Les
Moran, Robert
Rickards, Luke
Turner, Robin
Bogduk, Nikolai
author_facet Lucas, Nicholas
Macaskill, Petra
Irwig, Les
Moran, Robert
Rickards, Luke
Turner, Robin
Bogduk, Nikolai
author_sort Lucas, Nicholas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of this project was to investigate the reliability of a new 11-item quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). The tool was tested on studies reporting the reliability of any physical examination procedure. The reliability of physical examination is a challenging area to study given the complex testing procedures, the range of tests, and lack of procedural standardisation. METHODS: Three reviewers used QAREL to independently rate 29 articles, comprising 30 studies, published during 2007. The articles were identified from a search of relevant databases using the following string: “Reproducibility of results (MeSH) OR reliability (t.w.) AND Physical examination (MeSH) OR physical examination (t.w.).” A total of 415 articles were retrieved and screened for inclusion. The reviewers undertook an independent trial assessment prior to data collection, followed by a general discussion about how to score each item. At no time did the reviewers discuss individual papers. Reliability was assessed for each item using multi-rater kappa (κ). RESULTS: Multi-rater reliability estimates ranged from κ = 0.27 to 0.92 across all items. Six items were recorded with good reliability (κ > 0.60), three with moderate reliability (κ = 0.41 - 0.60), and two with fair reliability (κ = 0.21 - 0.40). Raters found it difficult to agree about the spectrum of patients included in a study (Item 1) and the correct application and interpretation of the test (Item 10). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that QAREL was a reliable assessment tool for studies of diagnostic reliability when raters agreed upon criteria for the interpretation of each item. Nine out of 11 items had good or moderate reliability, and two items achieved fair reliability. The heterogeneity in the tests included in this study may have resulted in an underestimation of the reliability of these two items. We discuss these and other factors that could affect our results and make recommendations for the use of QAREL.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3847619
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38476192013-12-04 The reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL) Lucas, Nicholas Macaskill, Petra Irwig, Les Moran, Robert Rickards, Luke Turner, Robin Bogduk, Nikolai BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: The aim of this project was to investigate the reliability of a new 11-item quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). The tool was tested on studies reporting the reliability of any physical examination procedure. The reliability of physical examination is a challenging area to study given the complex testing procedures, the range of tests, and lack of procedural standardisation. METHODS: Three reviewers used QAREL to independently rate 29 articles, comprising 30 studies, published during 2007. The articles were identified from a search of relevant databases using the following string: “Reproducibility of results (MeSH) OR reliability (t.w.) AND Physical examination (MeSH) OR physical examination (t.w.).” A total of 415 articles were retrieved and screened for inclusion. The reviewers undertook an independent trial assessment prior to data collection, followed by a general discussion about how to score each item. At no time did the reviewers discuss individual papers. Reliability was assessed for each item using multi-rater kappa (κ). RESULTS: Multi-rater reliability estimates ranged from κ = 0.27 to 0.92 across all items. Six items were recorded with good reliability (κ > 0.60), three with moderate reliability (κ = 0.41 - 0.60), and two with fair reliability (κ = 0.21 - 0.40). Raters found it difficult to agree about the spectrum of patients included in a study (Item 1) and the correct application and interpretation of the test (Item 10). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that QAREL was a reliable assessment tool for studies of diagnostic reliability when raters agreed upon criteria for the interpretation of each item. Nine out of 11 items had good or moderate reliability, and two items achieved fair reliability. The heterogeneity in the tests included in this study may have resulted in an underestimation of the reliability of these two items. We discuss these and other factors that could affect our results and make recommendations for the use of QAREL. BioMed Central 2013-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3847619/ /pubmed/24010406 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-111 Text en Copyright © 2013 Lucas et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lucas, Nicholas
Macaskill, Petra
Irwig, Les
Moran, Robert
Rickards, Luke
Turner, Robin
Bogduk, Nikolai
The reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL)
title The reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL)
title_full The reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL)
title_fullStr The reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL)
title_full_unstemmed The reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL)
title_short The reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL)
title_sort reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (qarel)
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847619/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24010406
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-111
work_keys_str_mv AT lucasnicholas thereliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel
AT macaskillpetra thereliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel
AT irwigles thereliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel
AT moranrobert thereliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel
AT rickardsluke thereliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel
AT turnerrobin thereliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel
AT bogduknikolai thereliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel
AT lucasnicholas reliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel
AT macaskillpetra reliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel
AT irwigles reliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel
AT moranrobert reliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel
AT rickardsluke reliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel
AT turnerrobin reliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel
AT bogduknikolai reliabilityofaqualityappraisaltoolforstudiesofdiagnosticreliabilityqarel