Michael W Sjoding1, Timothy P Hofer2, Ivan Co3, Anthony Courey4, Colin R Cooke5, Theodore J Iwashyna6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: msjoding@umich.edu. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Failure to reliably diagnose ARDS may be a major driver of negative clinical trials and underrecognition and treatment in clinical practice. We sought to examine the interobserver reliability of the Berlin ARDS definition and examine strategies for improving the reliability of ARDS diagnosis. METHODS: Two hundred five patients with hypoxic respiratory failure from four ICUs were reviewed independently by three clinicians, who evaluated whether patients had ARDS, the diagnostic confidence of the reviewers, whether patients met individual ARDS criteria, and the time when criteria were met. RESULTS: Interobserver reliability of an ARDS diagnosis was "moderate" (kappa = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.59). Sixty-seven percent of diagnostic disagreements between clinicians reviewing the same patient was explained by differences in how chest imaging studies were interpreted, with other ARDS criteria contributing less (identification of ARDS risk factor, 15%; cardiac edema/volume overload exclusion, 7%). Combining the independent reviews of three clinicians can increase reliability to "substantial" (kappa = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.80). When a clinician diagnosed ARDS with "high confidence," all other clinicians agreed with the diagnosis in 72% of reviews. There was close agreement between clinicians about the time when a patient met all ARDS criteria if ARDS developed within the first 48 hours of hospitalization (median difference, 5 hours). CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of the Berlin ARDS definition is moderate, driven primarily by differences in chest imaging interpretation. Combining independent reviews by multiple clinicians or improving methods to identify bilateral infiltrates on chest imaging are important strategies for improving the reliability of ARDS diagnosis.
BACKGROUND: Failure to reliably diagnose ARDS may be a major driver of negative clinical trials and underrecognition and treatment in clinical practice. We sought to examine the interobserver reliability of the Berlin ARDS definition and examine strategies for improving the reliability of ARDS diagnosis. METHODS: Two hundred five patients with hypoxic respiratory failure from four ICUs were reviewed independently by three clinicians, who evaluated whether patients had ARDS, the diagnostic confidence of the reviewers, whether patients met individual ARDS criteria, and the time when criteria were met. RESULTS: Interobserver reliability of an ARDS diagnosis was "moderate" (kappa = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.59). Sixty-seven percent of diagnostic disagreements between clinicians reviewing the same patient was explained by differences in how chest imaging studies were interpreted, with other ARDS criteria contributing less (identification of ARDS risk factor, 15%; cardiac edema/volume overload exclusion, 7%). Combining the independent reviews of three clinicians can increase reliability to "substantial" (kappa = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.80). When a clinician diagnosed ARDS with "high confidence," all other clinicians agreed with the diagnosis in 72% of reviews. There was close agreement between clinicians about the time when a patient met all ARDS criteria if ARDS developed within the first 48 hours of hospitalization (median difference, 5 hours). CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of the Berlin ARDS definition is moderate, driven primarily by differences in chest imaging interpretation. Combining independent reviews by multiple clinicians or improving methods to identify bilateral infiltrates on chest imaging are important strategies for improving the reliability of ARDS diagnosis.
Authors: Chirag V Shah; Paul N Lanken; A Russell Localio; Robert Gallop; Scarlett Bellamy; Shwu-Fan Ma; Carlos Flores; Jeremy M Kahn; Barbara Finkel; Barry D Fuchs; Joe G N Garcia; Jason D Christie Journal: Chest Date: 2010-06-24 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Niall D Ferguson; Eddy Fan; Luigi Camporota; Massimo Antonelli; Antonio Anzueto; Richard Beale; Laurent Brochard; Roy Brower; Andrés Esteban; Luciano Gattinoni; Andrew Rhodes; Arthur S Slutsky; Jean-Louis Vincent; Gordon D Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; V Marco Ranieri Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-08-25 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: V Marco Ranieri; Gordon D Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Niall D Ferguson; Ellen Caldwell; Eddy Fan; Luigi Camporota; Arthur S Slutsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Menglian Zhou; Ruchi Sharma; Hongbo Zhu; Ziqi Li; Jiliang Li; Shiyu Wang; Erin Bisco; Justin Massey; Amanda Pennington; Michael Sjoding; Robert P Dickson; Pauline Park; Robert Hyzy; Lena Napolitano; Christopher E Gillies; Kevin R Ward; Xudong Fan Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Daniel Kotok; Libing Yang; John W Evankovich; William Bain; Daniel G Dunlap; Faraaz Shah; Yingze Zhang; Dimitris V Manatakis; Panayiotis V Benos; Ian J Barbash; Sarah F Rapport; Janet S Lee; Alison Morris; Bryan J McVerry; Georgios D Kitsios Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Yub Raj Sedhai; Mengdan Yuan; Scott W Ketcham; Ivan Co; Dru D Claar; Jakob I McSparron; Hallie C Prescott; Michael W Sjoding Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-07
Authors: Majid Afshar; Cara Joyce; Anthony Oakey; Perry Formanek; Philip Yang; Matthew M Churpek; Richard S Cooper; Susan Zelisko; Ron Price; Dmitriy Dligach Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Matthew Schwede; Robert Y Lee; Hanjing Zhuo; Kirsten N Kangelaris; Alejandra Jauregui; Kathryn Vessel; Annika Belzer; Thomas Deiss; Michael A Matthay; Kathleen D Liu; Carolyn S Calfee Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Edward J Schenck; Clara Oromendia; Lisa K Torres; David A Berlin; Augustine M K Choi; Ilias I Siempos Journal: Chest Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 9.410