Accuracy and inter-rater reliability of lung auscultation by bovine practitioners when compared with ultrasonographic findings

In practice, veterinary surgeons frequently rely on lung auscultation as a confirmation test for pneumonia. To what extent diagnostic accuracy of lung auscultation varies between different practitioners is currently unknown. In this diagnostic test study, 49 Dutch veterinarians each auscultated betw...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Veterinary record 2019-07, Vol.185 (4), p.109-109
Hauptverfasser: Pardon, Bart, Buczinski, Sébastien, Deprez, Piet R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 109
container_issue 4
container_start_page 109
container_title Veterinary record
container_volume 185
creator Pardon, Bart
Buczinski, Sébastien
Deprez, Piet R
description In practice, veterinary surgeons frequently rely on lung auscultation as a confirmation test for pneumonia. To what extent diagnostic accuracy of lung auscultation varies between different practitioners is currently unknown. In this diagnostic test study, 49 Dutch veterinarians each auscultated between 8 and 10 calves, and communicated whether they would decide to treat the animal with antimicrobials or not. They were not allowed to perform any other aspect of the clinical examination. Their decisions were compared with lung ultrasonography findings. The average sensitivity and specificity of lung auscultation were 0.63 (sd=0.2; range=0.2–1.0) and 0.46 (sd=0.3; range=0.0–1.0), respectively. Of the participants, 8.2 per cent were 100 per cent sensitive, 16.3 per cent were 100 per cent specific, and only 4.0 per cent were perfect. The Krippendorff’s alpha was 0.18 (95 per cent confidence interval: −0.01 to 0.38), signifying poor reliability between multiple raters. Regardless of the poor diagnostic accuracy in this study, especially the large variation in a confirmation test between different practitioners could potentially cause professional damage as well as misuse of antimicrobials. This study could be seen as a gentle stimulus to regularly evaluate one’s diagnostic skills. Both complementary training and the use of more accurate techniques with less inter-rater variation could improve the situation.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/vr.105238
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2261233746</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2264544702</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b3851-b4236cbb48ba3427e41605cd428be9d926297ce23306736f66a37f4e105463403</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1q3DAUhUVISabTLvICRZAs2oVT_VkeL5OQtIVAoaTdGkm-ntFgS65kz-BNn70yTrMotBtJXL5z7hEHoQtKrinl8uMhXFOSM745QStGBMsKWZBTtCLzW5SEnKPXMe4JYWXO2Rk655Qzkgu5Qr9ujBmDMhNWrsbWDRCyoNKJA7RWadvaYcK-we3otliN0YztoAbrHdYT1v5gHeA-GQx2HkKI-LgDh43vehWgxkc77HDSBBW989ug-p01uLGutm4b36BXjWojvH2-1-j7w_3T3efs8eunL3c3j5nmm5xmWjAujdZioxUXrABBJclNLdhGQ1mXTLKyMMA4J7LgspFS8aIRQOdPckH4Gr1ffPvgf44Qh6qz0UDbKgd-jBVjkiZ1keg1uvwL3fsxuJRupkQuREFYoj4slAk-xgBN1QfbqTBVlFRzKdUhVEspiX337DjqDuoX8k8LCWALcLQtTP92qn7cP327fSApAU2iq0Wku_1_lv8GBV6i0A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2264544702</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy and inter-rater reliability of lung auscultation by bovine practitioners when compared with ultrasonographic findings</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Pardon, Bart ; Buczinski, Sébastien ; Deprez, Piet R</creator><creatorcontrib>Pardon, Bart ; Buczinski, Sébastien ; Deprez, Piet R</creatorcontrib><description>In practice, veterinary surgeons frequently rely on lung auscultation as a confirmation test for pneumonia. To what extent diagnostic accuracy of lung auscultation varies between different practitioners is currently unknown. In this diagnostic test study, 49 Dutch veterinarians each auscultated between 8 and 10 calves, and communicated whether they would decide to treat the animal with antimicrobials or not. They were not allowed to perform any other aspect of the clinical examination. Their decisions were compared with lung ultrasonography findings. The average sensitivity and specificity of lung auscultation were 0.63 (sd=0.2; range=0.2–1.0) and 0.46 (sd=0.3; range=0.0–1.0), respectively. Of the participants, 8.2 per cent were 100 per cent sensitive, 16.3 per cent were 100 per cent specific, and only 4.0 per cent were perfect. The Krippendorff’s alpha was 0.18 (95 per cent confidence interval: −0.01 to 0.38), signifying poor reliability between multiple raters. Regardless of the poor diagnostic accuracy in this study, especially the large variation in a confirmation test between different practitioners could potentially cause professional damage as well as misuse of antimicrobials. This study could be seen as a gentle stimulus to regularly evaluate one’s diagnostic skills. Both complementary training and the use of more accurate techniques with less inter-rater variation could improve the situation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0042-4900</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2042-7670</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/vr.105238</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31320546</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group Limited</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Animals ; Antimicrobial agents ; antimicrobial use ; Automation ; bovine respiratory disease ; calves ; Cattle industry ; Confidence intervals ; confirmation test ; Factory farming ; Farms ; Infectious diseases ; lung ultrasonography ; Pneumonia ; Respiratory diseases ; Studies ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Veterinarians ; Veterinary medicine</subject><ispartof>Veterinary record, 2019-07, Vol.185 (4), p.109-109</ispartof><rights>British Veterinary Association 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.</rights><rights>British Veterinary Association 2019</rights><rights>2019 British Veterinary Association 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b3851-b4236cbb48ba3427e41605cd428be9d926297ce23306736f66a37f4e105463403</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b3851-b4236cbb48ba3427e41605cd428be9d926297ce23306736f66a37f4e105463403</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1026-8433</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1136%2Fvr.105238$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1136%2Fvr.105238$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31320546$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pardon, Bart</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buczinski, Sébastien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deprez, Piet R</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy and inter-rater reliability of lung auscultation by bovine practitioners when compared with ultrasonographic findings</title><title>Veterinary record</title><addtitle>Vet Rec</addtitle><description>In practice, veterinary surgeons frequently rely on lung auscultation as a confirmation test for pneumonia. To what extent diagnostic accuracy of lung auscultation varies between different practitioners is currently unknown. In this diagnostic test study, 49 Dutch veterinarians each auscultated between 8 and 10 calves, and communicated whether they would decide to treat the animal with antimicrobials or not. They were not allowed to perform any other aspect of the clinical examination. Their decisions were compared with lung ultrasonography findings. The average sensitivity and specificity of lung auscultation were 0.63 (sd=0.2; range=0.2–1.0) and 0.46 (sd=0.3; range=0.0–1.0), respectively. Of the participants, 8.2 per cent were 100 per cent sensitive, 16.3 per cent were 100 per cent specific, and only 4.0 per cent were perfect. The Krippendorff’s alpha was 0.18 (95 per cent confidence interval: −0.01 to 0.38), signifying poor reliability between multiple raters. Regardless of the poor diagnostic accuracy in this study, especially the large variation in a confirmation test between different practitioners could potentially cause professional damage as well as misuse of antimicrobials. This study could be seen as a gentle stimulus to regularly evaluate one’s diagnostic skills. Both complementary training and the use of more accurate techniques with less inter-rater variation could improve the situation.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Antimicrobial agents</subject><subject>antimicrobial use</subject><subject>Automation</subject><subject>bovine respiratory disease</subject><subject>calves</subject><subject>Cattle industry</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>confirmation test</subject><subject>Factory farming</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>lung ultrasonography</subject><subject>Pneumonia</subject><subject>Respiratory diseases</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Veterinarians</subject><subject>Veterinary medicine</subject><issn>0042-4900</issn><issn>2042-7670</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1q3DAUhUVISabTLvICRZAs2oVT_VkeL5OQtIVAoaTdGkm-ntFgS65kz-BNn70yTrMotBtJXL5z7hEHoQtKrinl8uMhXFOSM745QStGBMsKWZBTtCLzW5SEnKPXMe4JYWXO2Rk655Qzkgu5Qr9ujBmDMhNWrsbWDRCyoNKJA7RWadvaYcK-we3otliN0YztoAbrHdYT1v5gHeA-GQx2HkKI-LgDh43vehWgxkc77HDSBBW989ug-p01uLGutm4b36BXjWojvH2-1-j7w_3T3efs8eunL3c3j5nmm5xmWjAujdZioxUXrABBJclNLdhGQ1mXTLKyMMA4J7LgspFS8aIRQOdPckH4Gr1ffPvgf44Qh6qz0UDbKgd-jBVjkiZ1keg1uvwL3fsxuJRupkQuREFYoj4slAk-xgBN1QfbqTBVlFRzKdUhVEspiX337DjqDuoX8k8LCWALcLQtTP92qn7cP327fSApAU2iq0Wku_1_lv8GBV6i0A</recordid><startdate>201907</startdate><enddate>201907</enddate><creator>Pardon, Bart</creator><creator>Buczinski, Sébastien</creator><creator>Deprez, Piet R</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Limited</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1026-8433</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201907</creationdate><title>Accuracy and inter-rater reliability of lung auscultation by bovine practitioners when compared with ultrasonographic findings</title><author>Pardon, Bart ; Buczinski, Sébastien ; Deprez, Piet R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b3851-b4236cbb48ba3427e41605cd428be9d926297ce23306736f66a37f4e105463403</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Antimicrobial agents</topic><topic>antimicrobial use</topic><topic>Automation</topic><topic>bovine respiratory disease</topic><topic>calves</topic><topic>Cattle industry</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>confirmation test</topic><topic>Factory farming</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>lung ultrasonography</topic><topic>Pneumonia</topic><topic>Respiratory diseases</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Veterinarians</topic><topic>Veterinary medicine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pardon, Bart</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buczinski, Sébastien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deprez, Piet R</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Veterinary record</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pardon, Bart</au><au>Buczinski, Sébastien</au><au>Deprez, Piet R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accuracy and inter-rater reliability of lung auscultation by bovine practitioners when compared with ultrasonographic findings</atitle><jtitle>Veterinary record</jtitle><addtitle>Vet Rec</addtitle><date>2019-07</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>185</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>109</spage><epage>109</epage><pages>109-109</pages><issn>0042-4900</issn><eissn>2042-7670</eissn><abstract>In practice, veterinary surgeons frequently rely on lung auscultation as a confirmation test for pneumonia. To what extent diagnostic accuracy of lung auscultation varies between different practitioners is currently unknown. In this diagnostic test study, 49 Dutch veterinarians each auscultated between 8 and 10 calves, and communicated whether they would decide to treat the animal with antimicrobials or not. They were not allowed to perform any other aspect of the clinical examination. Their decisions were compared with lung ultrasonography findings. The average sensitivity and specificity of lung auscultation were 0.63 (sd=0.2; range=0.2–1.0) and 0.46 (sd=0.3; range=0.0–1.0), respectively. Of the participants, 8.2 per cent were 100 per cent sensitive, 16.3 per cent were 100 per cent specific, and only 4.0 per cent were perfect. The Krippendorff’s alpha was 0.18 (95 per cent confidence interval: −0.01 to 0.38), signifying poor reliability between multiple raters. Regardless of the poor diagnostic accuracy in this study, especially the large variation in a confirmation test between different practitioners could potentially cause professional damage as well as misuse of antimicrobials. This study could be seen as a gentle stimulus to regularly evaluate one’s diagnostic skills. Both complementary training and the use of more accurate techniques with less inter-rater variation could improve the situation.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Limited</pub><pmid>31320546</pmid><doi>10.1136/vr.105238</doi><tpages>4</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1026-8433</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0042-4900
ispartof Veterinary record, 2019-07, Vol.185 (4), p.109-109
issn 0042-4900
2042-7670
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2261233746
source Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Accuracy
Animals
Antimicrobial agents
antimicrobial use
Automation
bovine respiratory disease
calves
Cattle industry
Confidence intervals
confirmation test
Factory farming
Farms
Infectious diseases
lung ultrasonography
Pneumonia
Respiratory diseases
Studies
Ultrasonic imaging
Veterinarians
Veterinary medicine
title Accuracy and inter-rater reliability of lung auscultation by bovine practitioners when compared with ultrasonographic findings
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T03%3A18%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Accuracy%20and%20inter-rater%20reliability%20of%20lung%20auscultation%20by%20bovine%20practitioners%20when%20compared%20with%20ultrasonographic%20findings&rft.jtitle=Veterinary%20record&rft.au=Pardon,%20Bart&rft.date=2019-07&rft.volume=185&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=109&rft.epage=109&rft.pages=109-109&rft.issn=0042-4900&rft.eissn=2042-7670&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/vr.105238&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2264544702%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2264544702&rft_id=info:pmid/31320546&rfr_iscdi=true