Literature DB >> 34244987

Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 2: Practical Statistical Methods for Understanding and Monitoring Independent Reader Performance.

David L Raunig1, Annette M Schmid2, Colin G Miller3, Richard C Walovitch4, Michael O'Connor5, Klaus Noever6, Ivalina Hristova7, Michael O'Neal8, Guenther Brueggenwerth9, Robert R Ford10.   

Abstract

Though many clinical trials rely on medical image evaluations for primary or key secondary endpoints, the methods to monitor reader performance are all too often mired in the legacy use of adjudication rates. If misused, this simple metric can be misleading and sometimes entirely contradictory. Furthermore, attempts to overcome the limitations of adjudication rates using de novo or ad hoc methods often ignore well-established research conducted over the last half-century and can lead to inaccurate conclusions or variable interpretations. Underperforming readers can be missed, expert readers retrained, or worse, replaced. This paper aims to standardize reader performance evaluations using proven statistical methods. Additionally, these methods will describe how to discriminate between scenarios of concern and normal medical interpretation variability. Statistical methods are provided for inter-reader and intra-reader variability and bias, including the adjudicator's bias. Finally, we have compiled guidelines for calculating correct sample sizes, considerations for intra-reader memory recall, and applying alternative designs for independent readers.
© 2021. The Drug Information Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adjudication rate; BICR; Bias; Independent review; Intra-reader variability; Reader performance; Training

Year:  2021        PMID: 34244987     DOI: 10.1007/s43441-021-00317-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci        ISSN: 2168-4790            Impact factor:   1.778


  30 in total

1.  Assessing inter-rater reliability for rating scales: resolving some basic issues.

Authors:  D V Cicchetti
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  1976-11       Impact factor: 9.319

2.  Inter-rater agreement in judging student adjustment from projective tests.

Authors:  I N KORNER; D WESTWOOD
Journal:  J Clin Psychol       Date:  1955-04

Review 3.  Bias in research studies.

Authors:  Gregory T Sica
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC): ensuring the integrity of expert-defined "truth".

Authors:  Samuel G Armato; Rachael Y Roberts; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Charles R Meyer; Anthony P Reeves; Geoffrey McLennan; Roger M Engelmann; Peyton H Bland; Denise R Aberle; Ella A Kazerooni; Heber MacMahon; Edwin J R van Beek; David Yankelevitz; Barbara Y Croft; Laurence P Clarke
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Efficacy according to blind independent central review: Post-hoc analyses from the phase III, randomized, multicenter, IPASS study of first-line gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC.

Authors:  Yi-Long Wu; Nagahiro Saijo; Sumitra Thongprasert; J C-H Yang; Baohui Han; Benjamin Margono; Busayamas Chewaskulyong; Patrapim Sunpaweravong; Yuichiro Ohe; Yukito Ichinose; Jin-Ji Yang; Tony S K Mok; Helen Young; Vincent Haddad; Yuri Rukazenkov; Masahiro Fukuoka
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 5.705

6.  Reliability of a measure of the quality of cognitive therapy.

Authors:  K S Dobson; B F Shaw; T M Vallis
Journal:  Br J Clin Psychol       Date:  1985-11

7.  The effect of clinical bias on the interpretation of myelography and spinal computed tomography.

Authors:  O P Eldevik; G Dugstad; W W Orrison; V M Haughton
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Progression-free survival by local investigator versus independent central review: comparative analysis of the AGO-OVAR16 Trial.

Authors:  Anne Floquet; Ignace Vergote; Nicoletta Colombo; Bent Fiane; Bradley J Monk; Alexander Reinthaller; Paula Calvert; Thomas J Herzog; Werner Meier; Jae-Weon Kim; Josep M del Campo; Michael Friedlander; Carmela Pisano; Seiji Isonishi; Rocco J Crescenzo; Catherine Barrett; Karrie Wang; Ionel Mitrica; Andreas du Bois
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 5.482

9.  Assessment of interobserver variability and histologic parameters to improve reliability in classification and grading of central cartilaginous tumors.

Authors:  Daniël Eefting; Yvonne M Schrage; Maartje J A Geirnaerdt; Saskia Le Cessie; Anthonie H M Taminiau; Judith V M G Bovée; Pancras C W Hogendoorn
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 6.394

10.  Lessons learned from independent central review.

Authors:  R Ford; L Schwartz; J Dancey; L E Dodd; E A Eisenhauer; S Gwyther; L Rubinstein; D Sargent; L Shankar; P Therasse; J Verweij
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 9.162

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 1 The Truth About Reader Disagreements.

Authors:  Annette M Schmid; David L Raunig; Colin G Miller; Richard C Walovitch; Robert W Ford; Michael O'Connor; Guenther Brueggenwerth; Josy Breuer; Liz Kuney; Robert R Ford
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 1.778

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.