Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36604617›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023

Detection of grey zones in inter-rater agreement studies.

Haydar Demirhan, Ayfer Ezgi Yilmaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Haydar Demirhan *Mathematical Sciences Discipline, School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, 3000, Victoria, Australia. haydar.demirhan@rmit.edu.au.
Ayfer Ezgi Yilmaz *Department of Statistics, Hacettepe University, Beytepe, Ankara, 06000, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn inter-rater agreement studies, the assessment behaviour of raters can be influenced by their experience, training levels, the degree of willingness to take risks, and the availability of clear guidelines for the assessment. When the assessment behaviour of raters differentiates for some levels of an ordinal classification, a grey zone occurs between the corresponding adjacent cells to these levels around the main diagonal of the table. A grey zone introduces a negative bias to the estimate of the agreement level between the raters. In that sense, it is crucial to detect the existence of a grey zone in an agreement table.

methodsIn this study, a framework composed of a metric and the corresponding threshold is developed to identify grey zones in an agreement table. The symmetry model and Cohen's kappa are used to define the metric, and the threshold is based on a nonlinear regression model. A numerical study is conducted to assess the accuracy of the developed framework. Real data examples are provided to illustrate the use of the metric and the impact of identifying a grey zone.

resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of the proposed framework are shown to be very high under moderate, substantial, and near-perfect agreement levels for [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] tables and sample sizes greater than or equal to 100 and 50, respectively. Real data examples demonstrate that when a grey zone is detected in the table, it is possible to report a notably higher level of agreement in the studies.

conclusionsThe accuracy of the proposed framework is sufficiently high; hence, it provides practitioners with a precise way to detect the grey zones in agreement tables.

Indexed as

Observer VariationHumansReproducibility of ResultsCohen’s KappaGray zoneInter-rater reliabilityOrdinal levelsTransition zoneWeighted kappa

Identifiers

PMID36604617
PMCPMC9814438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.