ReviewActa radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987)2025
Some common statistical methods for assessing rater agreement in radiological studies.
Review in Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultra-Low-Field Portable Magnetic Resonance Imaging Feasibility and Safety in Pediatric and Neonatal Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Single-Center Year-Long Experience.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Trial
- From Data to Clinical Decisions in Chronic Wound Care: Evaluation of the Interpretability, Minimal Important Difference, and Smallest Detectable Change of the Wound-QoL-14 in a Spanish Population.International wound journal · 2026Article
- AI-Assisted Compressed Sensing for Optimized Inner Ear Imaging: a Multi-Rater MRI Evaluation of CSAI T2-DRIVE.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
- AI-Based Spatial Burn Assessment with MLLMs: Body Region, 3 × 3 Grid Classification and Burn Instance Counting from Photographs and Semantic Segmentation Masks.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Radiographic Projection Quality Score for the Knee (RPQS-Knee): Development and Reliability.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From Personal Readiness to Systems Change: Progressive Clinician Cross-Competency Development in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2026Article
- Return to climbing after musculoskeletal injury: a scoping review protocol of rehabilitation content, outcome measures and return to sport criteria in climbers.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models in non-English medical ethics-related multiple choice questions: comparison of ChatGPT performance across versions and languages.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Virtual Non-Contrast Reconstructions Derived from Dual-Energy CTA Scans in Peripheral Arterial Disease: Comparison with True Non-Contrast Images and Impact on Radiation Dose.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rater agreement is commonly assessed in radiologic studies concerning image quality. There are several methods of measuring rater agreement. To choose the appropriate method, the researcher needs to consider the scale of the outcome variable and the design of the study. This article provides a brief overview of available methods, focusing on the most practical and commonly used, including intraclass correlation, the Svensson method, variants of the kappa statistic, the agreement coefficient by Gwet (AC1/AC2), and Krippendorff's alpha. Additional methods that are not primarily intended for rater agreement analysis but are applied in some cases are also discussed.
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.