Publication
Evidence Levels for Neuroradiology Articles: Low Agreement Among Raters
| dc.contributor.author | Ramalho, J | |
| dc.contributor.author | Tedesqui, G | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ramalho, M | |
| dc.contributor.author | Azevedo, RS | |
| dc.contributor.author | Castillo, M | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-08-06T14:53:23Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-08-06T14:53:23Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2015-06 | |
| dc.description.abstract | BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Because evidence-based articles are difficult to recognize among the large volume of publications available, some journals have adopted evidence-based medicine criteria to classify their articles. Our purpose was to determine whether an evidence-based medicine classification used by a subspecialty-imaging journal allowed consistent categorization of levels of evidence among different raters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive articles in the American Journal of Neuroradiology were classified as to their level of evidence by the 2 original manuscript reviewers, and their interobserver agreement was calculated. After publication, abstracts and titles were reprinted and independently ranked by 3 different radiologists at 2 different time points. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement was calculated for these radiologists. RESULTS: The interobserver agreement between the original manuscript reviewers was -0.2283 (standard error = 0.0000; 95% CI, -0.2283 to -0.2283); among the 3 postpublication reviewers for the first evaluation, it was 0.1899 (standard error = 0.0383; 95% CI, 0.1149-0.2649); and for the second evaluation, performed 3 months later, it was 0.1145 (standard error = 0.0350; 95% CI, 0.0460-0.1831). The intraobserver agreement was 0.2344 (standard error = 0.0660; 95% CI, 0.1050-0.3639), 0.3826 (standard error = 0.0738; 95% CI, 0.2379-0.5272), and 0.6611 (standard error = 0.0656; 95% CI, 0.5325-0.7898) for the 3 postpublication evaluators, respectively. These results show no-to-fair interreviewer agreement and a tendency to slight intrareviewer agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent use of evidence-based criteria by different raters limits their utility when attempting to classify neuroradiology-related articles. | pt_PT |
| dc.description.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.citation | AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Jun;36(6):1039-42. | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.3174/ajnr.A4242 | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/3010 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | pt_PT |
| dc.peerreviewed | yes | pt_PT |
| dc.publisher | American Society of Neuroradiology | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Evidence-Based Medicine | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Humans | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Observer Variation | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Periodicals as Topic | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | CHLC NRAD | pt_PT |
| dc.title | Evidence Levels for Neuroradiology Articles: Low Agreement Among Raters | pt_PT |
| dc.type | journal article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| oaire.citation.endPage | 1042 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.issue | 6 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.startPage | 1039 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.title | American Journal of Neuroradiology | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.volume | 36 | pt_PT |
| rcaap.rights | openAccess | pt_PT |
| rcaap.type | article | pt_PT |