ArticleStatistics in medicine2018
Overall indices for assessing agreement among multiple raters.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accelerating myelin defect detection in neurodegenerative disorders: a human-in-the-loop deep learning approach with birefringence microscopy.Neurophotonics · 2025Article
- Unscaled Indices for Assessing Agreement of Functional Data.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2025Article
- A model-free framework for evaluating the reliability of a new device with multiple imperfect reference standards.Biometrics · 2025Article
- Using multiple agreement methods for continuous repeated measures data: a tutorial for practitioners.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Brazilian-Portuguese Linguistic Validation of the Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Effects on Life Outcome Instrument.The Journal of craniofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The need to assess agreement exists in various clinical studies where quantifying inter-rater reliability is of great importance. Use of unscaled agreement indices, such as total deviation index and coverage probability (CP), is recommended for two main reasons: (i) they are intuitive in a sense that interpretations are tied to the original measurement unit; (ii) practitioners can readily determine whether the agreement is satisfactory by directly comparing the value of the index to a prespecified tolerable CP or absolute difference. However, the unscaled indices were only defined in the context of comparing two raters or multiple raters that assume homogeneity of variances across raters. In this paper, we introduce a set of overall indices based on the root mean square of pairwise differences that are unscaled and can be used to evaluate agreement among multiple raters that often exhibit heterogeneous measurement processes in practice. Furthermore, we propose another overall agreement index based on the root mean square of pairwise differences that is scaled and extends the concept of the recently proposed relative area under CP curve in the presence of multiple raters. We present the definitions of overall indices and propose inference procedures in which bootstrap methods are used for the estimation of standard errors. We assess the performance of the proposed approach and demonstrate its superiority over the existing methods when raters exhibit heterogeneous measurement processes using simulation studies. Finally, we demonstrate the application of our methods using a renal study.
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.