ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020
Homogeneity score test of AC
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Identifying opioid agonist treatment prescriber networks from health administrative data: A validation study.PloS one · 2025Article
- A Pilot Study on the Collection of Adverse Event Data from the Patient Using an Electronic Platform in a Cancer Clinical Trial Unit.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2024Article
- Homogeneity Test of the First-Order Agreement Coefficient in a Stratified Design.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
- Investigating the effects of COVID-19 lockdown on Italian children and adolescents with and without neurodevelopmental disorders: a cross-sectional study.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCohen's κ coefficient is often used as an index to measure the agreement of inter-rater determinations. However, κ varies greatly depending on the marginal distribution of the target population and overestimates the probability of agreement occurring by chance. To overcome these limitations, an alternative and more stable agreement coefficient was proposed, referred to as Gwet's AC
methodsTwo homogeneity tests are provided: a score test and a goodness-of-fit test. In this study, the confidence intervals are derived by asymptotic, Fisher's Z transformation and profile variance methods. Monte Carlo simulation studies were conducted to examine the validity of the proposed methods. An example using clinical data is also provided.
resultsType I error rates of the proposed score test were close to the nominal level when conducting simulations with small and moderate sample sizes. The confidence intervals based on Fisher's Z transformation and the profile variance method provided coverage levels close to nominal over a wide range of parameter combination.
conclusionsThe method proposed in this study is considered to be useful for summarizing evaluations of consistency performed in multiple or stratified inter-rater agreement studies, for meta-analysis of reports from multiple groups and for stratified analysis.
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.