ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2015
Evidence levels for neuroradiology articles: low agreement among raters.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Levels of evidence supporting European and American community-acquired pneumonia guidelines.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeBecause evidence-based articles are difficult to recognize among the large volume of publications available, some journals have adopted evidence-based medicine criteria to classify their articles. Our purpose was to determine whether an evidence-based medicine classification used by a subspecialty-imaging journal allowed consistent categorization of levels of evidence among different raters. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred consecutive articles in the American Journal of Neuroradiology were classified as to their level of evidence by the 2 original manuscript reviewers, and their interobserver agreement was calculated. After publication, abstracts and titles were reprinted and independently ranked by 3 different radiologists at 2 different time points. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement was calculated for these radiologists.
resultsThe interobserver agreement between the original manuscript reviewers was -0.2283 (standard error = 0.0000; 95% CI, -0.2283 to -0.2283); among the 3 postpublication reviewers for the first evaluation, it was 0.1899 (standard error = 0.0383; 95% CI, 0.1149-0.2649); and for the second evaluation, performed 3 months later, it was 0.1145 (standard error = 0.0350; 95% CI, 0.0460-0.1831). The intraobserver agreement was 0.2344 (standard error = 0.0660; 95% CI, 0.1050-0.3639), 0.3826 (standard error = 0.0738; 95% CI, 0.2379-0.5272), and 0.6611 (standard error = 0.0656; 95% CI, 0.5325-0.7898) for the 3 postpublication evaluators, respectively. These results show no-to-fair interreviewer agreement and a tendency to slight intrareviewer agreement.
conclusionsInconsistent use of evidence-based criteria by different raters limits their utility when attempting to classify neuroradiology-related articles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.