Histologic Estimation of Coronary Artery Stenoses: Reproducibility and the Effect of Training
Histologic estimation of coronary artery stenoses (CAS) provides the ‘gold-standard’ for clinicopathologic correlations and medicolegal investigations, yet little evidence supports histology as a reproducible diagnostic measure, and none addresses the effect of training on its use. To study these qu...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cardiovascular pathology 2000-09, Vol.9 (5), p.251-255 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 255 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 251 |
container_title | Cardiovascular pathology |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Ford, Jason C O'Rourke, Keith Veinot, John P Walley, Virginia M |
description | Histologic estimation of coronary artery stenoses (CAS) provides the ‘gold-standard’ for clinicopathologic correlations and medicolegal investigations, yet little evidence supports histology as a reproducible diagnostic measure, and none addresses the effect of training on its use. To study these questions, 20 randomly selected Movat-stained coronary artery cross-sections were reviewed 3 times, at 3-month intervals, by six clinical pathologists (CPs), six pathology residents (Res), seven anatomic pathologists (APs), and two cardiovascular pathologists (CVPs). Before the third iteration, a guide to CAS assessment with illustrations was provided. Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility were determined using interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (0.40–0.75 = fair–good; ≥0.76 = excellent agreement beyond chance). Surprisingly, all study groups had excellent interobserver reproducibility. Before training, at Time 1, the scores were CPs, 0.77; Res, 0.89; APs, 0.93; and CVPs, 0.93. After training, at Time 3, the results were CPs, 0.81; Res, 0.91; APs, 0.86; and CVPs, 0.88. Intraobserver reproducibility for CPs overall was good (ICC, 0.74), and excellent for Res, APs, and CVPs (0.89, 0.94, and 0.97, respectively). In conclusion, statistical analysis failed to demonstrate any significant effect of training or experience on observer reproducibility. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S1054-8807(00)00044-2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72390312</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1054880700000442</els_id><sourcerecordid>72390312</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-e263t-2823d7b493e51eacd8f37dfd9bb19fb98916b14400dd1e7956a1a257725f54943</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kUtLBDEQhIMoPlZ_gjIn0cNoOslMJl5EltUVBMHHUUJm0qOR2YkmWWH_vVkfp-rD1011FSGHQM-AQn3-CLQSZdNQeULpKaVUiJJtkF1opCqB83ozz__IDtmL8T1DjRBim-wA0FowCbvkZe5i8oN_dV0xi8ktTHJ-LHxfTH3wowmr4iokzPKYcPQR40XxgB_B22XnWje4tCrMaIv0hsWs77FL692nYNzoxtd9stWbIeLBn07I8_XsaTov7-5vbqdXdyWymqeSNYxb2QrFsQI0nW16Lm1vVduC6lvVKKhbEIJSawGlqmoDhlVSsqqvhBJ8Qo5_72Zjn0uMSS9c7HAYzIh-GbVkXFEOLINHf-CyXaDVHyF_HFb6P5AMXP4CmO1-OQw6dg7HDq0L-TltvdNA9boC_VOBXuerKdU_FWjGvwGUeXeW</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72390312</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Histologic Estimation of Coronary Artery Stenoses: Reproducibility and the Effect of Training</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Ford, Jason C ; O'Rourke, Keith ; Veinot, John P ; Walley, Virginia M</creator><creatorcontrib>Ford, Jason C ; O'Rourke, Keith ; Veinot, John P ; Walley, Virginia M</creatorcontrib><description>Histologic estimation of coronary artery stenoses (CAS) provides the ‘gold-standard’ for clinicopathologic correlations and medicolegal investigations, yet little evidence supports histology as a reproducible diagnostic measure, and none addresses the effect of training on its use. To study these questions, 20 randomly selected Movat-stained coronary artery cross-sections were reviewed 3 times, at 3-month intervals, by six clinical pathologists (CPs), six pathology residents (Res), seven anatomic pathologists (APs), and two cardiovascular pathologists (CVPs). Before the third iteration, a guide to CAS assessment with illustrations was provided. Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility were determined using interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (0.40–0.75 = fair–good; ≥0.76 = excellent agreement beyond chance). Surprisingly, all study groups had excellent interobserver reproducibility. Before training, at Time 1, the scores were CPs, 0.77; Res, 0.89; APs, 0.93; and CVPs, 0.93. After training, at Time 3, the results were CPs, 0.81; Res, 0.91; APs, 0.86; and CVPs, 0.88. Intraobserver reproducibility for CPs overall was good (ICC, 0.74), and excellent for Res, APs, and CVPs (0.89, 0.94, and 0.97, respectively). In conclusion, statistical analysis failed to demonstrate any significant effect of training or experience on observer reproducibility.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1054-8807</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1336</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S1054-8807(00)00044-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11064271</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Autopsy - standards ; Coronary Disease - pathology ; Humans ; Observer Variation ; Practice Patterns, Physicians ; Reproducibility of Results</subject><ispartof>Cardiovascular pathology, 2000-09, Vol.9 (5), p.251-255</ispartof><rights>2000 Elsevier Science Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054880700000442$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11064271$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ford, Jason C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Rourke, Keith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veinot, John P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walley, Virginia M</creatorcontrib><title>Histologic Estimation of Coronary Artery Stenoses: Reproducibility and the Effect of Training</title><title>Cardiovascular pathology</title><addtitle>Cardiovasc Pathol</addtitle><description>Histologic estimation of coronary artery stenoses (CAS) provides the ‘gold-standard’ for clinicopathologic correlations and medicolegal investigations, yet little evidence supports histology as a reproducible diagnostic measure, and none addresses the effect of training on its use. To study these questions, 20 randomly selected Movat-stained coronary artery cross-sections were reviewed 3 times, at 3-month intervals, by six clinical pathologists (CPs), six pathology residents (Res), seven anatomic pathologists (APs), and two cardiovascular pathologists (CVPs). Before the third iteration, a guide to CAS assessment with illustrations was provided. Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility were determined using interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (0.40–0.75 = fair–good; ≥0.76 = excellent agreement beyond chance). Surprisingly, all study groups had excellent interobserver reproducibility. Before training, at Time 1, the scores were CPs, 0.77; Res, 0.89; APs, 0.93; and CVPs, 0.93. After training, at Time 3, the results were CPs, 0.81; Res, 0.91; APs, 0.86; and CVPs, 0.88. Intraobserver reproducibility for CPs overall was good (ICC, 0.74), and excellent for Res, APs, and CVPs (0.89, 0.94, and 0.97, respectively). In conclusion, statistical analysis failed to demonstrate any significant effect of training or experience on observer reproducibility.</description><subject>Autopsy - standards</subject><subject>Coronary Disease - pathology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Practice Patterns, Physicians</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><issn>1054-8807</issn><issn>1879-1336</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo1kUtLBDEQhIMoPlZ_gjIn0cNoOslMJl5EltUVBMHHUUJm0qOR2YkmWWH_vVkfp-rD1011FSGHQM-AQn3-CLQSZdNQeULpKaVUiJJtkF1opCqB83ozz__IDtmL8T1DjRBim-wA0FowCbvkZe5i8oN_dV0xi8ktTHJ-LHxfTH3wowmr4iokzPKYcPQR40XxgB_B22XnWje4tCrMaIv0hsWs77FL692nYNzoxtd9stWbIeLBn07I8_XsaTov7-5vbqdXdyWymqeSNYxb2QrFsQI0nW16Lm1vVduC6lvVKKhbEIJSawGlqmoDhlVSsqqvhBJ8Qo5_72Zjn0uMSS9c7HAYzIh-GbVkXFEOLINHf-CyXaDVHyF_HFb6P5AMXP4CmO1-OQw6dg7HDq0L-TltvdNA9boC_VOBXuerKdU_FWjGvwGUeXeW</recordid><startdate>20000901</startdate><enddate>20000901</enddate><creator>Ford, Jason C</creator><creator>O'Rourke, Keith</creator><creator>Veinot, John P</creator><creator>Walley, Virginia M</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000901</creationdate><title>Histologic Estimation of Coronary Artery Stenoses: Reproducibility and the Effect of Training</title><author>Ford, Jason C ; O'Rourke, Keith ; Veinot, John P ; Walley, Virginia M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-e263t-2823d7b493e51eacd8f37dfd9bb19fb98916b14400dd1e7956a1a257725f54943</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Autopsy - standards</topic><topic>Coronary Disease - pathology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Practice Patterns, Physicians</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ford, Jason C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Rourke, Keith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veinot, John P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walley, Virginia M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cardiovascular pathology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ford, Jason C</au><au>O'Rourke, Keith</au><au>Veinot, John P</au><au>Walley, Virginia M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Histologic Estimation of Coronary Artery Stenoses: Reproducibility and the Effect of Training</atitle><jtitle>Cardiovascular pathology</jtitle><addtitle>Cardiovasc Pathol</addtitle><date>2000-09-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>251</spage><epage>255</epage><pages>251-255</pages><issn>1054-8807</issn><eissn>1879-1336</eissn><abstract>Histologic estimation of coronary artery stenoses (CAS) provides the ‘gold-standard’ for clinicopathologic correlations and medicolegal investigations, yet little evidence supports histology as a reproducible diagnostic measure, and none addresses the effect of training on its use. To study these questions, 20 randomly selected Movat-stained coronary artery cross-sections were reviewed 3 times, at 3-month intervals, by six clinical pathologists (CPs), six pathology residents (Res), seven anatomic pathologists (APs), and two cardiovascular pathologists (CVPs). Before the third iteration, a guide to CAS assessment with illustrations was provided. Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility were determined using interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (0.40–0.75 = fair–good; ≥0.76 = excellent agreement beyond chance). Surprisingly, all study groups had excellent interobserver reproducibility. Before training, at Time 1, the scores were CPs, 0.77; Res, 0.89; APs, 0.93; and CVPs, 0.93. After training, at Time 3, the results were CPs, 0.81; Res, 0.91; APs, 0.86; and CVPs, 0.88. Intraobserver reproducibility for CPs overall was good (ICC, 0.74), and excellent for Res, APs, and CVPs (0.89, 0.94, and 0.97, respectively). In conclusion, statistical analysis failed to demonstrate any significant effect of training or experience on observer reproducibility.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>11064271</pmid><doi>10.1016/S1054-8807(00)00044-2</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1054-8807 |
ispartof | Cardiovascular pathology, 2000-09, Vol.9 (5), p.251-255 |
issn | 1054-8807 1879-1336 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72390312 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Autopsy - standards Coronary Disease - pathology Humans Observer Variation Practice Patterns, Physicians Reproducibility of Results |
title | Histologic Estimation of Coronary Artery Stenoses: Reproducibility and the Effect of Training |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T02%3A31%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Histologic%20Estimation%20of%20Coronary%20Artery%20Stenoses:%20Reproducibility%20and%20the%20Effect%20of%20Training&rft.jtitle=Cardiovascular%20pathology&rft.au=Ford,%20Jason%20C&rft.date=2000-09-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=251&rft.epage=255&rft.pages=251-255&rft.issn=1054-8807&rft.eissn=1879-1336&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S1054-8807(00)00044-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E72390312%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72390312&rft_id=info:pmid/11064271&rft_els_id=S1054880700000442&rfr_iscdi=true |