medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-8013 (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa

2022, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med UAS 2022; 12 (1)

Interobserver agreement between radiology residents and radiology attendants in the tomographic diagnosis of abdominal pain

Negreros-Osuna JP, Zatarain-Bayliss L, Dehesa-Lopez E, Peraza-Garay FJ

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 30-39
PDF size: 111.58 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the concordance of the tomographic diagnoses of patients with abdominal pain between image residents and doctors assigned to the UNIMA service of the Hospital Civil de Culiacán. Material and Methods: Prospective, observational and cross-sectional study, taking as study data 100 tomographs performed on patients with abdominal pain who attended UNIMA, who met the quality criteria to make an adequate imaging diagnosis and using the Kappa coefficient to calculate the Concordance between 4 residents and 2 attendant doctors. Results: The agreement was calculated and obtained a concordance of 88% (p ‹.0001), between resident 1 and attendant doctors, resident 2 obtained a concordance of 90% (p ‹.0001), residents 3 and 4, obtained a 91 % and 89% (p ‹.0001), respectively. Conclusion: The concordance obtained between residents and attendant doctors was 89.5% (p ‹.0001) on average; It is interpreted according to the Kappa coefficient as almost perfect, giving certainty that the teaching standards in the UNIMA service are high in the abdominal pain scenario.


REFERENCES

  1. Herring W. Radiología básica + StudentConsult:Aspectos fundamentals; Elsevier HealthSciences Spain;2012. p. 105-106.

  2. Prokop M. General principles of MDCT. EurJ Radiol. 2003 Mar;45 Suppl 1:S4-10.

  3. Fenchel S, Fleiter TR, Merkle EM. Multislicehelical CT of the abdomen. Eur rad. 2002Jul;12 Suppl 2:S5-10

  4. Cahir JG, Freeman AH, Courtney HM. MultisliceCT of the abdomen. BJR.2004;77(suppl_1):S64-S73.

  5. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ. Accuracyof interpretation of CT scans: comparingPACS monitor displays and hard-copy images.AJR. 2002 Dec;179(6):1407-10.

  6. Grundmann RT, Petersen M, Lippert H, MeyerF. The acute (surgical) abdomen - epidemiology,diagnosis and general principles ofmanagement. Z Gastroenterol. 2010Jun;48(6):696-706.

  7. Robinson DA, Lin E. Cope’s Early Diagnosisof the Acute Abdomen: 20th Edition. AnnSurg. 2001;233(4):594.

  8. Moshe S, Lane R, Rogers P, Assalia A.Schein's Common Sense Emergency AbdominalSurgery: An Unconventional Book forTrainees and Thinking Surgeons; Berlin Heidelberg;Springer 2010.

  9. Knopp RK, Dries D. Analgesia in acute abdominalpain: what's next? Ann. Emerg.Med. 2006 Aug;48(2):161-3.

  10. Rosen MP, Sands DZ, Longmaid HE, 3rd,Reynolds KF, Wagner M, Raptopoulos V.Impact of abdominal CT on the managementof patients presenting to the emergency departmentwith acute abdominal pain. AJR.2000 May;174(5):1391-6.

  11. Ng CS, Watson CJ, Palmer CR, See TC,Beharry NA, Housden BA, et al. Evaluationof early abdominopelvic computed tomographyin patients with acute abdominal painof unknown cause: prospective randomisedstudy. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2002 Dec14;325(7377):1387

  12. Salem TA, Molloy RG, O'Dwyer PJ. Prospectivestudy on the role of the CT scan inpatients with an acute abdomen. Colorectaldisease: the official journal of the Associationof Coloproctology of Great Britain andIreland. 2005 Sep;7(5):460-6.

  13. Keedy A, Westphalen AC, Qayyum A, AslamR, Rybkin AV, Chen MH, et al. Diagnosis ofcirrhosis by spiral computed tomography: acase-control study with feature analysis andassessment of interobserver agreement.JCAT. 2008 Mar-Apr;32(2):198-203.

  14. Stafira JS, Sonnad JR, Yuh WT, Huard DR,Acker RE, Nguyen DL, et al. Qualitative assessmentof cervical spinal stenosis: observervariability on CT and MR images. AJNR.2003 Apr;24(4):766-9.

  15. Colledge N, Sellar R, Wardlaw J, Lewis S,Mead G, Wilson J. Interobserver agreementin magnetic resonance brain and neck imaging.J Neuroimaging. 2006;16(1):47-51.

  16. Costantino G, Norsa AH, Amadori R, IppolitoS, Resta F, Bianco R, et al. Interobserveragreement in the interpretation of computedtomography in acute pulmonary embolism.Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2009 Nov;27(9):1109-11

  17. Verweij JW, Hofstee HM, Golding RP, vanWaesberghe JH, Smulders YM. Interobserveragreement between on-call radiology residentsand radiology specialists in the diagnosisof pulmonary embolism using computedtomography pulmonary angiography.JCAT. 2009 Nov-Dec;33(6):952-5.

  18. Ginsberg MS, King V, Panicek DM. Comparisonof interpretations of CT angiograms inthe evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolismby on-call radiology fellows and subsequentlyby radiology faculty. AJR. 2004Jan;182(1):61-6.

  19. Ippolito D, Casiraghi AS, Talei FC, BonaffiniPA, Fior D, Sironi S. Intraobserver and InterobserverAgreement in the Evaluation ofTumor Vascularization With Computed TomographyPerfusion in Cirrhotic PatientsWith Hepatocellular Carcinoma. JCAT. 2016Jan-Feb;40(1):152-9.

  20. Petralia G, Preda L, Raimondi S, D'AndreaG, Summers P, Giugliano G, et al. Intra- andInterobserver Agreement and Impact of ArterialInput Selection in Perfusion CT MeasurementsPerformed in Squamous Cell Carcinomaof the Upper Aerodigestive Tract.AJNR. 2009 June 1, 2009;30(6):1107-15.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com