ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Inter-Rater Reliability of Collateral Status Assessment Based on CT Angiography: A Retrospective Study of Middle Cerebral Artery Ischaemic Stroke.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The importance of assessing the collateral status (CS) in patients with ischaemic stroke (IS) has repeatedly been emphasised in clinical guidelines. Various publications offer qualitative or semiquantitative scales with gradations corresponding to the different extents of the collaterals, visualised mostly on the basis of CTA images. However, information on their inter-rater reliability is limited. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the inter-rater reliability of the scales for collateral assessment. CTA images of 158 patients in the acute period of IS were used in the study. The assessment of CS was performed by two experts using three methodologies: the modified Tan scale, the Miteff scale, and the Rosenthal scale. Cohen's kappa, weighted kappa and Krippendorff's alpha were used as reliability measures. For the modified Tan scale and the Miteff and Rosenthal scales, the weighted kappa values were 0.72, 0.49 and 0.59, respectively. Although the best measure of consistency was found for the modified Tan scale, no statistically significant differences were revealed among the scales. The impact of the CS on the degree of neurological deficit at discharge was shown for the modified Tan and Rosenthal scales. In conclusion, the analysis showed a moderate inter-rater reliability of the three scales, but was not able to distinguish the best one among them.
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.