Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWright, KCen_US
dc.contributor.authorMelia, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorMoss, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorBerney, DMen_US
dc.contributor.authorColeman, Den_US
dc.contributor.authorHarnden, Pen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-08-14T15:02:43Z
dc.date.issued2011-12en_US
dc.identifier12en_US
dc.identifier.citationJOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 2011, 64 pp. 1128 - 1131en_US
dc.identifier.issn0021-9746en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/2338
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/jclinpath-2011-200229en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground A Urological Pathology External Quality Assurance (EQA) Scheme in the UK has reported observer variation in the diagnosis and grading of adenocarcinoma in prostatic biopsies using basic kappa statistics, which rate all disagreements equally. Aim The aim of this study is to use customised weighting schemes to report kappa statistics that reflect the closeness of interobserver agreement in the prostate EQA scheme. Methods A total of 83, 114 and 116 pathologists took part, respectively, in three web-based circulations and were classified as either expert or other readers. For analyses of diagnosis, there were 10, 8 and 8 cases in the three circulations, respectively. For analyses of Gleason Sum Score, only invasive cases were included, leaving 5, 5 and 6 cases, respectively. Analyses were conducted using customised weighting schemes with ‘pairwise-weighted’ kappa for multiple readers. Results Analysis of diagnosis for all circulations and all readers gave a composite kappa value of 0.86 and pairwise-weighted kappa (kappa(p-w)) value of 0.91, both regarded as ‘almost perfect’ agreement. This was due to the high proportion of responses that showed partial agreement. Analysis of Gleason Sum Score gave kappa=0.38 and kappa(p-w) = 0.58 over all circulations and all readers, indicating that discrepancies occur at the boundary between adjacent grades and may not be as clinically significant as suggested by composite kappa. Conclusion Weighted k show higher levels of agreement than previously reported as they have the advantage of applying weighting, which reflects the relative importance of different types of discordance in diagnosis or grading. Agreement on grading remained low.en_US
dc.format.extent1128 - 1131en_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.publisherB M J PUBLISHING GROUPen_US
dc.titleMeasuring interobserver variation in a pathology EQA scheme using weighted kappa for multiple readersen_US
dc.typeJournal Article
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1136/jclinpath-2011-200229en_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2011-12en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
dc.relation.isPartOfJOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGYen_US
pubs.notesaffiliation: Wright, KC (Reprint Author), ICON Clin Res, 2 Globeside,Globeside Business Pk, Marlow SL7 1TB, Bucks, England. Wright, Karen C.; Melia, Jane; Moss, Sue; Coleman, Derek, Inst Canc Res, Canc Screening Evaluat Unit, Sutton, Surrey, England. Berney, Dan M., Barts Canc Inst, London, England. Harnden, Patricia, Leeds Teaching Hosp NHS Trust, Dept Histopathol, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England. keywords-plus: EXTERNAL QUALITY-ASSURANCE; OBSERVER VARIABILITY; PROSTATIC-CARCINOMA; AGREEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY; CYTOLOGY; CANCER; UK research-areas: Pathology web-of-science-categories: Pathology author-email: karen.wright@iconplc.com funding-acknowledgement: Department of Health; Orchid [1080540, 3963360]; NHS funding-text: Karen Wright, Sue Moss, Derek Coleman and Jane Melia were funded by the Policy Research Programme of the Department of Health. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health. Dr Dan Berney is funded by Orchid (Registered with the Charity Commission No. 1080540 and registered in England 3963360). The Prostate EQA is funded by the NHS Cancer Screening Programme. number-of-cited-references: 18 times-cited: 1 usage-count-last-180-days: 0 usage-count-since-2013: 2 journal-iso: J. Clin. Pathol. doc-delivery-number: 851JA unique-id: ISI:000297263100018 da: 2018-08-14en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Closed research teams
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Closed research teams/Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit (DoH)
pubs.volume64en_US
pubs.embargo.termsNot knownen_US
icr.researchteamCancer Screening Evaluation Unit (DoH)en_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorMoss, Susan Maryen_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorWright, Karenen_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorMelia, Janeen_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorColeman, Derecken_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record