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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Veterinary record 2019-07, Vol.185 (4), p.109-109 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & 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 |