A review of five cardiology journals found that observer variability of measured variables was infrequently reported

Increased RV:LV ratio on chest CT-angiogram in COVID-19 is a marker of adverse outcomes

BACKGROUND

Right ventricular (RV) dilation has been used to predict adverse outcomes in acute pulmonary conditions. It has been used to categorize the severity of novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) infection. Our study aimed to use chest CT-angiogram (CTA) to assess if increased RV dilation, quantified as an increased RV:LV (left ventricle) ratio, is associated with adverse outcomes in the COVID-19 infection, and if it occurs out of proportion to lung parenchymal disease.

RESULTS

We reviewed clinical, laboratory, and chest CTA findings in COVID-19 patients (n = 100), and two control groups: normal subjects (n = 10) and subjects with organizing pneumonia (n = 10). On a chest CTA, we measured basal dimensions of the RV and LV in a focused 4-chamber view, and dimensions of pulmonary artery (PA) and aorta (AO) at the PA bifurcation level. Among the COVID-19 cohort, a higher RV:LV ratio was correlated with adverse outcomes, defined as ICU admission, intubation, or death. In patients with adverse outcomes, the RV:LV ratio was 1.06 ± 0.10, versus 0.95 ± 0.15 in patients without adverse outcomes. Among the adverse outcomes group, compared to the control subjects with organizing pneumonia, the lung parenchymal damage was lower (22.6 ± 9.0 vs. 32.7 ± 6.6), yet the RV:LV ratio was higher (1.06 ± 0.14 vs. 0.89 ± 0.07). In ROC analysis, RV:LV ratio had an AUC = 0.707 with an optimal cutoff of RV:LV ≥ 1.1 as a predictor of adverse outcomes. In a validation cohort (n = 25), an RV:LV ≥ 1.1 as a cutoff predicted adverse outcomes with an odds ratio of 76:1.

CONCLUSIONS

In COVID-19 patients, RV:LV ratio ≥ 1.1 on CTA chest is correlated with adverse outcomes. RV dilation in COVID-19 is out of proportion to parenchymal lung damage, pointing toward a vascular and/or thrombotic injury in the lungs.

Reliability of medical record abstraction by non-physicians for orthopedic research

Background

Medical record review (MRR) is one of the most commonly used research methods in clinical studies because it provides rich clinical detail. However, because MRR involves subjective interpretation of information found in the medical record, it is critically important to understand the reproducibility of data obtained from MRR. Furthermore, because medical record review is both technically demanding and time intensive, it is important to establish whether trained research staff with no clinical training can abstract medical records reliably.

Methods

We assessed the reliability of abstraction of medical record information in a sample of patients who underwent total knee replacement (TKR) at a referral center. An orthopedic surgeon instructed two research coordinators (RCs) in the abstraction of inpatient medical records and operative notes for patients undergoing primary TKR. The two RCs and the surgeon each independently reviewed 75 patients’ records and one RC reviewed the records twice. Agreement was assessed using the proportion of items on which reviewers agreed and the kappa statistic.

Results

The kappa for agreement between the surgeon and each RC ranged from 0.59 to 1 for one RC and 0.49 to 1 for the other; the percent agreement ranged from 82% to 100% for one RC and 70% to 100% for the other. The repeated abstractions by the same RC showed high intra-rater agreement, with kappas ranging from 0.66 to 1 and percent agreement ranging from 97% to 100%. Inter-rater agreement between the two RCs was moderate with kappa ranging from 0.49 to 1 and percent agreement ranging from 76% to 100%.

Conclusion

The MRR method used in this study showed excellent reliability for abstraction of information that had low technical complexity and moderate to good reliability for information that had greater complexity. Overall, these findings support the use of non-surgeons to abstract surgical data from operative notes.

Inter-rater reliability for measurement of passive physiological movements in lower extremity joints is generally low: a systematic review

QUESTION

What is the inter-rater reliability for measurements of passive physiological or accessory movements in lower extremity joints?

DESIGN

Systematic review of studies of inter-rater reliability.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals with and without lower extremity disorders.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Range of motion and end-feel using methods feasible in daily practice.

RESULTS

17 studies were included of which 5 demonstrated acceptable inter-rater reliability. Reliability of measurements of physiological range of motion ranged from Kappa -0.02 for measuring knee extension using a goniometer to ICC 0.97 for measuring knee flexion using vision. Measuring range of knee flexion consistently yielded acceptable reliability using either vision or instruments. Measurements of end-feel were unreliable for all hip and knee movements. Two studies satisfied all criteria for internal validity while reporting acceptable reliability for measuring physiological range of knee flexion and extension. Overall,however, methodological quality of included studies was poor.

CONCLUSION

Inter-rater reliability of measurement of passive movements in lower extremity joints is generally low. We provide specific recommendations for the conduct and reporting of future research. Awaiting new evidence, clinicians should be cautious when relying on results from measurements of passive movements in joints for making decisions about patients with lower extremity disorders.

Methods to achieve high interrater reliability in data collection from primary care medical records

PURPOSE

We assessed interrater reliability (IRR) of chart abstractors within a randomized trial of cardiovascular care in primary care. We report our findings, and outline issues and provide recommendations related to determining sample size, frequency of verification, and minimum thresholds for 2 measures of IRR: the κ statistic and percent agreement.

METHODS

We designed a data quality monitoring procedure having 4 parts: use of standardized protocols and forms, extensive training, continuous monitoring of IRR, and a quality improvement feedback mechanism. Four abstractors checked a 5% sample of charts at 3 time points for a predefined set of indicators of the quality of care. We set our quality threshold for IRR at a κ of 0.75, a percent agreement of 95%, or both.

RESULTS

Abstractors reabstracted a sample of charts in 16 of 27 primary care practices, checking a total of 132 charts with 38 indicators per chart. The overall κ across all items was 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.92) and the overall percent agreement was 94.3%, signifying excellent agreement between abstractors. We gave feedback to the abstractors to highlight items that had a κ of less than 0.70 or a percent agreement less than 95%. No practice had to have its charts abstracted again because of poor quality.

CONCLUSIONS

A 5% sampling of charts for quality control using IRR analysis yielded κ and agreement levels that met or exceeded our quality thresholds. Using 3 time points during the chart audit phase allows for early quality control as well as ongoing quality monitoring. Our results can be used as a guide and benchmark for other medical chart review studies in primary care.

Fewer infants than older patients in paediatric randomised controlled trials

To determine whether the youngest age groups are less likely to be included in paediatric randomised controlled trials (PRCTs) than older children, we conducted a PubMed search using the keyword "randomised controlled trial" and the limit "all child: 0-18 years". We retrieved 417 articles published in 2006 in 34 leading journals classified as general medical journals, paediatric medical journals, or specialist medical journals. We arbitrarily selected 144 articles, at random. For each study, we evaluated population age characteristics (central tendency, range, and dispersion), study design, sample size and topic. Of the 144 studies, only 82 were first reports of paediatric randomised controlled trials (PRCTs). Among the other studies, many were done in adults. Of the 82 PRCTs, only 11% included newborns and 26% infants; 59% included children and 39% adolescents. Using the same search strategy to retrieve PRCTs in the same journals in the last 4 months of 2009 retrieved 66 PRCTs, of which 17% included newborns, 24% infants, 61% children and 55% adolescents. The three health conditions most often reported were respiratory diseases, infectious diseases, and mental and behavioural disorders. In 34 leading journals, PRCTs were significantly less likely to include newborns and infants than older paediatric patients. Given the huge impact of PRCTs on paediatric health, additional efforts are needed to promote studies in newborns and infants, as well as studies of the impact of recent European and American regulations designed to encourage paediatric drug trials.

The measurement of the QT and QTc on the neonatal and infant electrocardiogram: a comprehensive reliability assessment

BACKGROUND

An electrocardiogram has been proposed to screen for prolonged QT interval that may predispose infants to sudden death in the first year of life. Understanding the reliability of QT interval measurement will inform the design of a screening program.

METHODS

Three pediatric cardiologists measured the QT/RR intervals on 60 infant electrocardiograms (median age 46 days), from leads II, V5 and V6 on three separate occasions, 7 days apart, according to a standard protocol. The QTc was corrected by Bazett's (QTcB), Fridericia's (QT(CFrid)), and Hodges' (QTcH) formulae. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), limits of agreement and repeatability coefficients for single, average of two and average of three measures. Agreement for QTc prolongation (> 440 msec) was assessed by kappa coefficients.

RESULTS

QT interval intraobserver ICC was 0.86 and repeatability coefficient was 25.9 msec; interobserver ICC increased from 0.88 for single observations to 0.94 for the average of 3 measurements and repeatability coefficients decreased from 22.5 to 16.7 msec. For QTcB, intraobserver ICC was 0.67, and repeatability was 39.6 msec. Best interobserver reliability for QTcB was for the average of three measurements (ICC 0.83, reproducibility coefficient 25.8 msec), with further improvement for QTcH (ICC 0.92, reproducibility coefficient 16.69 msec). Maximum interobserver kappa for prolonged QTc was 0.77. Misclassification around specific cut points occurs because of the repeatability coefficients.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncorrected QT measures are more reliable than QTcB and QT(CFrid). An average of three independent measures provides the most reliable QT and QTc measurements, with QTcH better than QTcB.