Maria Wostrack1, Dorothee Mielke2, Naoki Kato3, Susanne Guhl4, Nils Ole Schmidt5, Nicolai Maldaner6, Peter Vajkoczy6, Julius Dengler7. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Georg-August-University Goettingen, Göttingen, Germany. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center, Hamburg Eppendorf, Germany. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. 7. Department of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. julius.dengler@charite.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Giant Intracranial Aneurysm Registry is a multicenter observational trial exclusively focusing on giant intracranial aneurysms (GIA). As no data exist on the interobserver variability in the radiological description of GIA, there is some uncertainty concerning the reliability of the GIA characteristics included in the registry. We have therefore designed a study to test the interobserver variability in the description of the specific GIA characteristics that are examined in the GIA registry. METHODS: Six different raters analyzed imaging of five GIA concerning GIA location, GIA size, GIA shape, GIA thrombosis, and the presence of perianeurysmal edema. Interobserver variability was examined using intraclass correlation and Fleiss' kappa analysis. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.99 (95 % CI 0.97-1.0) for the largest GIA diameter and 0.98 (95 % CI 0.94-1.0) for the largest GIA diameter in an axial imaging slice. We found perfect interobserver agreement (Fleiss' kappa 1.00) in the characterization of GIA location and the presence of perianeurysmal edema and almost perfect interobserver agreement for GIA thrombosis (Fleiss' kappa 0.86, 95 % CI 0.63-1.00). Only moderate interobserver agreement was found in the description of GIA shape (Fleiss' kappa 0.50, 95 % CI 0.27-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: While GIA size, location, thrombosis, and the presence of perianeurysmal edema showed excellent interobserver agreement, the description of GIA shape was achieved with only moderate agreement. Data on GIA shape in multicenter studies, like the GIA registry, should therefore be discussed with caution and potentially reassessed in a centralized fashion.
BACKGROUND: The Giant Intracranial Aneurysm Registry is a multicenter observational trial exclusively focusing on giant intracranial aneurysms (GIA). As no data exist on the interobserver variability in the radiological description of GIA, there is some uncertainty concerning the reliability of the GIA characteristics included in the registry. We have therefore designed a study to test the interobserver variability in the description of the specific GIA characteristics that are examined in the GIA registry. METHODS: Six different raters analyzed imaging of five GIA concerning GIA location, GIA size, GIA shape, GIA thrombosis, and the presence of perianeurysmal edema. Interobserver variability was examined using intraclass correlation and Fleiss' kappa analysis. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.99 (95 % CI 0.97-1.0) for the largest GIA diameter and 0.98 (95 % CI 0.94-1.0) for the largest GIA diameter in an axial imaging slice. We found perfect interobserver agreement (Fleiss' kappa 1.00) in the characterization of GIA location and the presence of perianeurysmal edema and almost perfect interobserver agreement for GIA thrombosis (Fleiss' kappa 0.86, 95 % CI 0.63-1.00). Only moderate interobserver agreement was found in the description of GIA shape (Fleiss' kappa 0.50, 95 % CI 0.27-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: While GIA size, location, thrombosis, and the presence of perianeurysmal edema showed excellent interobserver agreement, the description of GIA shape was achieved with only moderate agreement. Data on GIA shape in multicenter studies, like the GIA registry, should therefore be discussed with caution and potentially reassessed in a centralized fashion.
Authors: Hye Jeong Kim; Dae Young Yoon; Eun Soo Kim; Hyung Jin Lee; Hong Jun Jeon; Jong Young Lee; Byung-Moon Cho Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-03-25 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Pablo M Munarriz; Eduardo Bárcena; Jose F Alén; Ana M Castaño-Leon; Igor Paredes; Luis Miguel Moreno-Gómez; Daniel García-Pérez; Luis Jiménez-Roldán; Pedro A Gómez; Alfonso Lagares Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 1.610