BACKGROUND: Two methods of estimating reader variability (RV) in QT measurements between 12 readers were compared. METHODS: Using data from 500 electrocardiograms (ECGs) analyzed twice by 12 readers, we bootstrapped 1000 datasets each for both methods. In grouped analysis design (GAD), the same 40 ECGs were read twice by all readers. In pairwise analysis design (PAD), 40 ECGs analyzed by each reader in a clinical trial were reanalyzed by the same reader (intra-RV) and also by another reader (inter-RV); thus, variability between each pair of readers was estimated using different ECGs. RESULTS: Inter-RV (mean [95% CI]) between pairs of readers by GAD and PAD was 3.9 ms (2.1-5.5 ms) and 4.1 ms (2.6-5.4 ms), respectively, using ANOVA, 0 ms (-0.0 to 0.4 ms), and 0 ms (-0.7 to 0.6 ms), respectively, by actual difference between readers and 7.7 ms (6.2-9.8 ms) and 7.7 ms (6.6-9.1 ms), respectively, by absolute difference between readers. Intra-RV too was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: RV estimates by the grouped- and pairwise analysis designs are comparable.
BACKGROUND: Two methods of estimating reader variability (RV) in QT measurements between 12 readers were compared. METHODS: Using data from 500 electrocardiograms (ECGs) analyzed twice by 12 readers, we bootstrapped 1000 datasets each for both methods. In grouped analysis design (GAD), the same 40 ECGs were read twice by all readers. In pairwise analysis design (PAD), 40 ECGs analyzed by each reader in a clinical trial were reanalyzed by the same reader (intra-RV) and also by another reader (inter-RV); thus, variability between each pair of readers was estimated using different ECGs. RESULTS: Inter-RV (mean [95% CI]) between pairs of readers by GAD and PAD was 3.9 ms (2.1-5.5 ms) and 4.1 ms (2.6-5.4 ms), respectively, using ANOVA, 0 ms (-0.0 to 0.4 ms), and 0 ms (-0.7 to 0.6 ms), respectively, by actual difference between readers and 7.7 ms (6.2-9.8 ms) and 7.7 ms (6.6-9.1 ms), respectively, by absolute difference between readers. Intra-RV too was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: RV estimates by the grouped- and pairwise analysis designs are comparable.
Authors: O Kittnar; I Paclt; M Mlcek; J Slavícek; A Dohnalová; S Havránek; E Brizman; E Kitzlerová; K Pisvejcová Journal: Physiol Res Date: 2004 Impact factor: 1.881
Authors: Ivaylo Christov; Ivan Dotsinsky; Iana Simova; Rada Prokopova; Elina Trendafilova; Stefan Naydenov Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2006-05-18 Impact factor: 2.819
Authors: Diego Mannhart; Elisa Hennings; Mirko Lischer; Claudius Vernier; Jeanne Du Fay de Lavallaz; Sven Knecht; Beat Schaer; Stefan Osswald; Michael Kühne; Christian Sticherling; Patrick Badertscher Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-06-23