ArticleDigital health
An assessment of the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the modified Gordon pin infection classification system.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: A grading system deployed for continuous at-home monitoring of pin sites would potentially increase the chances of early detection of pin-site infections and the commencement of early treatment. The first five grades of the Modified Gordon Pin Site Classification Scheme (MGS) meet the criteria for a visual-only, digital assessment-based grading system. The aim of this study was to assess the inter- and intra-rater reliability of the first five grades of the MGS from digital images. Methods: We graded 1082 pin sites from 572 digital photographs of patients who underwent external fixator treatment for various conditions using the first five grades of the MGS classification scheme. Percent agreement and kappa values were calculated to determine the inter- and intra-rater agreement. Results were also grouped into two categories: "good" consisting of MGS grades 0-2 and "bad" made up of grades 3 and 4 for sensitivity analysis. We also analyzed reliability based on color only using MGS grades 0 and 2. Results: A total of 843 of the 1082 pin sites were scored by all raters. There was moderate reliability between raters with a Fleiss kappa value of 0.48 [CI 0.45, 0.51]. The reliability remained moderate based on grouping into "good' versus "bad" and based on color with Fleiss kappa values of 0.48 [CI 0.45, 0.52] and 0.45 [CI 0.42, 0.49], respectively. Intra-rater reliability demonstrated substantial agreement with kappa values of 0.63. Conclusion: Scoring pin sites from digital images with the MGS demonstrated only moderate inter-rater reliability. Modifying the use of digital photos is needed for at-home monitoring of pin sites.
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.