This website is for students following the M.Sc. in Evidence Based Practice at the University of York.
The following is the abstract of a paper:
AIMS: To assess the quality of the imaging procedure requests and radiologists' reports using an auditing tool, and to assess the agreement between different observers of the quality parameters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an audit using a standardized scoring system, three observers reviewed request forms for 296 consecutive radiological examinations, and two observers reviewed a random sample of 150 of the corresponding radiologists' reports. We present descriptive statistics from the audit and pairwise inter-observer agreement, using the proportion agreement and kappa statistics.
RESULTS: The proportion of acceptable item scores (0 or +1) was above 70% for all items except the requesting physician's bleep or extension number, legibility of the physician's name, or details about previous investigations. For pairs of observers, the inter-observer agreement was generally high, however, the corresponding kappa values were consistently low with only 14 of 90 ratings >0.60 and 6 >0.80 on the requests/reports. For the quality of the clinical information, the appropriateness of the request, and the requested priority/timing of the investigation items, the mean percentage agreement ranged 67-76, and the corresponding kappa values ranged 0.08-0.24.
CONCLUSION: The inter-observer reliability of scores on the different items showed a high degree of agreement, although the kappa values were low, which is a well-known paradox. Current routines for requesting radiology examinations appeared satisfactory, although several problem areas were identified.
(Source: Stavem K, Foss T, Botnmark O, Andersen OK, Erikssen J. Inter-observer agreement in audit of quality of radiology requests and reports. Clinical Radiology 2004; 59: 1018-1024.)
Back to Measurement in Health and Disease index.
This page maintained by Martin Bland.
Last updated: 1 March, 2007.