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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cardiovascular pathology 2000-09, Vol.9 (5), p.251-255
Hauptverfasser: Ford, Jason C, O'Rourke, Keith, Veinot, John P, Walley, Virginia M
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