BACKGROUND: Impedance monitoring for reflux evaluation does not have standardized scoring, which can confound interpretation between observers. We investigated the variability of impedance testing interpretation between physicians and computer software. METHODS: Raw impedance data from 38 patients that underwent impedance monitoring at a tertiary referral center between 2008 and 2013 were collected. Two physicians and computer software each analyzed the same impedance dataset for reflux activity and symptom-reflux correlation. RESULTS: Normalized reflux activity interpretations did not differ between physicians and the computer for acid or non-acid reflux. However, for weakly acidic reflux, there was significant difference between physicians (p < 0.01) and between physician and computer (p < 0.01). In analyzing all reflux, significant variability existed between physicians (p < 0.01) but not between physician and computer. Variability in interpretation altered diagnosis in 24 % of patients when comparing between physicians, 18 % of patients when comparing both physicians to the computer, and an additional 24 % of cases when comparing a single physician to the computer. Symptom-reflux correlation differed in 7 % of physician-physician comparisons versus 8 % of computer-physician comparisons. CONCLUSION: Impedance testing analysis is subject to marked variability between physicians and computer software, making impedance prone to interpretation error that can lead to differences in diagnosis and management.
BACKGROUND: Impedance monitoring for reflux evaluation does not have standardized scoring, which can confound interpretation between observers. We investigated the variability of impedance testing interpretation between physicians and computer software. METHODS: Raw impedance data from 38 patients that underwent impedance monitoring at a tertiary referral center between 2008 and 2013 were collected. Two physicians and computer software each analyzed the same impedance dataset for reflux activity and symptom-reflux correlation. RESULTS: Normalized reflux activity interpretations did not differ between physicians and the computer for acid or non-acid reflux. However, for weakly acidic reflux, there was significant difference between physicians (p < 0.01) and between physician and computer (p < 0.01). In analyzing all reflux, significant variability existed between physicians (p < 0.01) but not between physician and computer. Variability in interpretation altered diagnosis in 24 % of patients when comparing between physicians, 18 % of patients when comparing both physicians to the computer, and an additional 24 % of cases when comparing a single physician to the computer. Symptom-reflux correlation differed in 7 % of physician-physician comparisons versus 8 % of computer-physician comparisons. CONCLUSION: Impedance testing analysis is subject to marked variability between physicians and computer software, making impedance prone to interpretation error that can lead to differences in diagnosis and management.
Authors: F Cremonini; D C Ziogas; H Y Chang; E Kokkotou; J M Kelley; L Conboy; T J Kaptchuk; A J Lembo Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2010-03-26 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Clara M Loots; Michiel P van Wijk; Kathleen Blondeau; Kasper Dalby; Laura Peeters; Rachel Rosen; Silvia Salvatore; Tobias G Wenzl; Yvan Vandenplas; Marc A Benninga; Taher I Omari Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: J R Jamieson; H J Stein; T R DeMeester; L Bonavina; W Schwizer; R A Hinder; M Albertucci Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 1992-09 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Maureen Moore; Cheguevara Afaneh; Daniel Benhuri; Caroline Antonacci; Jonathan Abelson; Rasa Zarnegar Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-01-27