Visual rating of age-related white matter changes on magnetic resonance imaging -: Scale comparison, interrater agreement, and correlations with quantitative measurements
Visual rating of age-related white matter changes on magnetic resonance imaging -: Scale comparison, interrater agreement, and correlations with quantitative measurements
复制标题
DOI：
10.1161/01.str.0000049766.26453.e9
复制
发表时间：
2003-02-01
期刊：
影响因子：
8.3
通讯作者：
Fazekas, F
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kapeller, P;Barber, R;Fazekas, F
背景与目的：为了进一步了解年龄相关白质变化（ARWMCs）的MRI视觉评分量表，3名不同经验水平的评分者在横断面和随访中测试了3种广泛使用的评分量表的一致性和可比性。此外，还评估了视觉评分与定量体积测量之间的相关性。方法：来自不同地点的3位评分者使用3种已建立的评分量表（Manolio， Fazekas和Schmidt， Scheltens）对来自5个欧洲中心的74次基线和随访扫描进行评估。一名研究者还对奥地利卒中预防研究（asp）的255名参与者的基线扫描进行了评分，并测量了arwmc的体积。结果-所有量表的基线调查的解释器一致性为一般到良好（kappa值为0.59至0.78）。在后续扫描中，所有3名评分者都描述了显著的ARWMC进展；然而，该任务的直接通译者一致性较差（kappa， 0.19至0.39）。3种量表间的互译信度比较显示，Manolio量表与Fazekas和Schmidt量表基线调查的互译信度差异有统计学意义（z值为-2.9676；P=0.003），表明Fazekas和Schmidt量表具有更好的互译信度一致性。3种评定量表的评定结果高度相关（Spearman秩相关，0.712 ~ 0.806；小于或等于0.01），3种目视评定量表与ARWMC定量体积测量结果之间存在显著的一致性(Kendall W, 0.37、0.48、0.57；P
Background and Purpose-To provide further insight into the MRI assessment of age-related white matter changes (ARWMCs) with visual rating scales, 3 raters with different levels of experience tested the interrater agreement and comparability of 3 widely used rating scales in a cross-sectional and follow-up setting. Furthermore, the correlation between visual ratings and quantitative volumetric measurement was assessed.Methods-Three raters from different sites using 3 established rating scales (Manolio, Fazekas and Schmidt, Scheltens) evaluated 74 baseline and follow-up scans from 5 European centers. One investigator also rated baseline scans in a set of 255 participants of the Austrian Stroke Prevention Study (ASPS) and measured the volume of ARWMCs.Results-The interrater agreement for the baseline investigation was fair to good for all scales (kappa values, 0.59 to 0.78). On the follow-up scans, all 3 raters depicted significant ARWMC progression; however, the direct interrater agreement for this task was poor (kappa, 0.19 to 0.39). Comparison of the interrater reliability between the 3 scales revealed a statistical significant difference between the scale of Manolio and that of Fazekas and Schmidt for the baseline investigation (z value, -2.9676; P=0.003), demonstrating better interrater agreement for the Fazekas and Schmidt scale. The rating results obtained with all 3 scales were highly correlated with each other (Spearman rank correlation, 0.712 to 0.806; Pless than or equal to0.01), and there was significant agreement between all 3 visual rating scales and the quantitative volumetric measurement of ARWMC (Kendall W, 0.37, 0.48, and 0.57; P