Ischaemic stroke etiological classification system: the agreement analysis of CISS, SPARKLE and TOAST
Ischaemic stroke etiological classification system: the agreement analysis of CISS, SPARKLE and TOAST
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/svn-2018-000226
复制
发表时间：
2019-09-01
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Wang, Yongjun
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Zhang, Haojie;Li, Zixiao;Wang, Yongjun
背景与目的理想的脑卒中分类系统应具有效度、信度和适用性。中国缺血性卒中亚分类（CISS）和缺血性卒中亚型分类系统（SPARKLE）是近年来出现的两个新的分类系统，但尚未进行一致性分析。因此，本研究的目的是调查使用CISS、SPARKLE和急性卒中治疗试验（吐司）的卒中亚型分类之间的一致性水平。我们还分析了CISS的评分者间信度。方法收集2015年10月1日至2016年4月19日北京天坛医院住院的623例缺血性脑卒中患者的临床资料。根据3种亚型分类系统的诊断标准，对符合本研究要求的299例住院患者进行病因亚型独立分类，并对3种亚型进行比较。结果CISS与SPARKLE三种分类系统之间基本一致（kappa值=0.684，p
Background and purpose The ideal stroke classification system needs to have validity, high reliability and applicability among different stroke research settings. The Chinese Ischemic Stroke Subclassification (CISS) and the Subtypes of Ischemic Stroke Classification System (SPARKLE) have emerged recently but have not been tested using agreement analysis. As a result, the objective of this study is to investigate the level of agreement among stroke subtype classifications using CISS, SPARKLE and Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST). We also analyse the inter-rater reliability of CISS. Methods The data include 623 inpatients who have had an ischaemic stroke, accrued from Beijing Tiantan Hospital between 1 October 2015 and 19 April 2016. According to the diagnostic standards of the three subtype classification systems, 299 inpatients who satisfied the requirements of our study were independently classified with etiological subtypes, and we compared the three subclassifications. Results There was substantial overall agreement among the three classification systems: CISS versus SPARKLE (kappa value=0.684, p