A review of five cardiology journals found that observer variability of measured variables was infrequently reported
A review of five cardiology journals found that observer variability of measured variables was infrequently reported
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.05.010
复制
发表时间：
2008-04-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Moher, David
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gow, Robert M.;Barrowman, Nicholas J.;Moher, David
目的：调查 2005 年发表的五种高影响力心脏病学期刊的临床研究中观察者间和观察者内部变异性分析的报告。 研究设计和设置：一项使用电子和手动相结合的横断面研究，从 511 篇报告观察者变异性评估的合格文章中确定了 180 篇。随机选择其中 60 项进行详细审查。 结果：60 项研究报告观察者间变异性、观察者内变异性或两者兼而有之的比例分别为 27%、17% 和 53%。所报告的观察者间和观察者内分析的方法设计包括 42% 和 33% 的特定方案，31% 和 17% 的观察者被认为是独立的，50% 和 31% 的观察者为盲法，并且分别只有 33% 和 36% 的人确定了先前的统计计划。 Pearson 相关性是报告最多的连续变量测量方法，Bland 和 Altman 的方法分别在 15% 的观察者间研究和 14% 的观察者内研究中报告。对于分类变量，kappa 统计数据的报告率分别为 82% 和 80%。结论：观察者间和观察者内分析的报告不明确且不完整，阻碍了可靠性评估。对于连续变量，最常报告为采用了不适当的方法。 (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. 保留所有权利。
Objective: To investigate the reporting of the analysis of interobserver and intra-observer variability within clinical research studies from five high-impact cardiology journals published in 2005.Study Design and Setting: A cross-sectional study using a combined electronic and manual search identified 180 of 511 eligible articles that reported the assessment of observer variability. Sixty of these were randomly selected for detailed review.Results: The proportion of the 60 studies reporting interobserver variability, intra-observer variability, or both were 27%, 17%, and 53%, respectively. The reported methodological design of interobserver and intra-observer analyses included a specific protocol in 42% and 33%, identified observers as independent in 31% and 17%, as blinded in 50% and 31%, and identified a prior statistical plan in only 33% and 36%, respectively. Pearson correlation was the most reported measure for continuous variables, and the methods of Bland and Altman were reported in 15% of interobserver and 14% of intra-observer studies, respectively. For categorical variables, a kappa statistic was reported in 82% and 80%, respectively.Conclusion: Reliability assessment is hampered by unclear and incomplete reporting of interobserver and intra-observer analysis. For continuous variables, inappropriate methods were most frequently reported as being done. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.