Literature DB >> 8708644

Observer variation in the interpretation of intra-arterial angiograms and the risk of inappropriate decisions about carotid endarterectomy.

G R Young1, P A Sandercock, J Slattery, P R Humphrey, E T Smith, L Brock.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine how often observer variation in the interpretation of intra-arterial angiograms might alter the decision whether or not to refer patients for carotid surgery.
METHODS: A prospective study was carried out in a consecutive series of 99 patients with transient ischaemic attacks and minor strokes. Interpretable angiographic films were available for 179 carotid artery bifurcations. Stenosis of the internal carotid artery was measured using mm scales, independently by three different radiologists (A, B, and C), using the European Carotid Surgery Trial method.
RESULTS: An analysis of the grouped data showed good to moderate agreement by kappa statistics for radiologists A v B, B v C, and A v C of 0.68, 0.60, and 0.70 respectively. The mean absolute difference in the estimate of stenosis by each of the different radiologists (interobserver variation) was 9.5% and for each radiologist on two separate occasions (intraobserver variation) 8.4%. The degree of observer error was smallest among severely stenosed arteries. Although the absolute differences were small, "clinically important" differences which could change the treatment recommended from surgery to no surgery (or vice versa) occurred between radiologists A and B, B and C, and A and C in: seven (3.9%), six (3.4%), and 11 (6.1%) vessels respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Because observer variation affects all of the imaging methods (Doppler, duplex, contrast arteriography, and MR angiography) used to select patients with transient ischaemic attack and stroke, these findings are likely to be widely relevant. Any centre assessing patients with cerebrovascular disease will need to implement strict quality control measures in the interpretation of angiograms (and other vascular imaging procedures) to minimise observer error and thereby reduce the number of inappropriate decisions made to refer for carotid artery surgery or not.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8708644      PMCID: PMC1073795          DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.60.2.152

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry        ISSN: 0022-3050            Impact factor:   10.154


  9 in total

1.  The measurement of blood flow waveforms from X-ray angiography. Part 1: Principles of the method and preliminary validation.

Authors:  J N Brunt; D A Wicks; D J Hawkes; A M Seifalian; G H du Boulay; A F Colchester; A Wallis
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 1.617

2.  A simple method to improve the accuracy of non-invasive ultrasound in selecting TIA patients for cerebral angiography.

Authors:  P Humphrey; P Sandercock; J Slattery
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 10.154

3.  Complications of cerebral angiography for patients with mild carotid territory ischaemia being considered for carotid endarterectomy.

Authors:  G J Hankey; C P Warlow; A J Molyneux
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 10.154

4.  Measurement variability of carotid atherosclerosis: real-time (B-mode) ultrasonography and angiography.

Authors:  D H O'Leary; F A Bryan; M W Goodison; M D Rifkin; R Gramiak; M Ball; M G Bond; R A Dunn; B B Goldberg; J F Toole
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1987 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 7.914

Review 5.  Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic.

Authors:  M Maclure; W C Willett
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Observer variability in evaluating extracranial carotid artery stenosis.

Authors:  P M Chikos; L D Fisher; J H Hirsch; J D Harley; B L Thiele; D E Strandness
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1983 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 7.914

8.  Carotid digital subtraction angiography: the comparative roles of intra-arterial and intravenous imaging.

Authors:  L M Reilly; W K Ehrenfeld; R J Stoney
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 3.982

9.  Complications of cerebral angiography in patients with symptomatic carotid territory ischaemia screened by carotid ultrasound.

Authors:  K N Davies; P R Humphrey
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 10.154

  9 in total
  7 in total

1.  How does the degree of carotid stenosis affect the accuracy and interobserver variability of magnetic resonance angiography?

Authors:  J M Wardlaw; S C Lewis; P Humphrey; G Young; D Collie; C P Warlow
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 10.154

2.  [Diagnostic evaluation of carotid artery stenoses with multislice CT angiography. Review of the literature and results of a pilot study].

Authors:  B Ertl-Wagner; R Brüning; R-T Hoffmann; G Meimarakis; M F Reiser
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 0.635

3.  Measuring carotid artery stenosis--comparison of postmortem arteriograms with the planimetric gold standard.

Authors:  Gernot Schulte-Altedorneburg; Dirk W Droste; Józef Kollár; Torsten Beyna; Szabolcs Felszeghy; László Módis; Csaba Hegedüs; E Bernd Ringelstein; László Csiba
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2005-03-23       Impact factor: 4.849

4.  Measurement error of percent diameter carotid stenosis determined by conventional angiography: implications for noninvasive evaluation.

Authors:  Joseph E Heiserman
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Non-invasive carotid imaging.

Authors:  G R Young; P R Humphrey; T E Nixon; E T Smith
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 10.154

6.  Accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in predicting angiographic stenosis of the internal carotid artery: linear regression analysis.

Authors:  Gasser M Hathout; Michael J Duh; Suzie M El-Saden
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.825

7.  Outcome, observer reliability, and patient preferences if CTA, MRA, or Doppler ultrasound were used, individually or together, instead of digital subtraction angiography before carotid endarterectomy.

Authors:  S G Patel; D A Collie; J M Wardlaw; S C Lewis; A R Wright; R J Gibson; R J Sellar
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 10.154

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.