Evaluating Diagnostic Concordance in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Among Academic Glaucoma Subspecialists.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Chenmin Wang, De-Fu Chen, Xiao Shang, Xiaoyan Wang, Xizhong Chu, Chengju Hu, Qiangjie Huang, Gangwei Cheng, Jianjun Li, Ruiyi Ren, Yuanbo Liang
{"title":"Evaluating Diagnostic Concordance in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Among Academic Glaucoma Subspecialists.","authors":"Chenmin Wang, De-Fu Chen, Xiao Shang, Xiaoyan Wang, Xizhong Chu, Chengju Hu, Qiangjie Huang, Gangwei Cheng, Jianjun Li, Ruiyi Ren, Yuanbo Liang","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics14212460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> The study aimed to evaluate the interobserver agreement among glaucoma subspecialists in diagnosing glaucoma and to explore the causes of diagnostic discrepancies. <b>Methods:</b> Three experienced glaucoma subspecialists independently assessed frequency domain optical coherence tomography, fundus color photographs, and static perimetry results from 464 eyes of 275 participants, adhering to unified glaucoma diagnostic criteria. All data were collected from the Wenzhou Glaucoma Progression Study between August 2014 and June 2021. <b>Results:</b> The overall interobserver agreement among the three experts was poor, with a Fleiss' kappa value of 0.149. The kappa values interobserver agreement between pairs of experts ranged from 0.133 to 0.282. In 50 cases, or approximately 10.8%, the three experts reached completely different diagnoses. Agreement was more likely in cases involving larger average cup-to-disc ratios, greater vertical cup-to-disc ratios, more severe visual field defects, and thicker retinal nerve fiber layer measurements, particularly in the temporal and inferior quadrants. High myopia also negatively impacted interobserver agreement. <b>Conclusions:</b> Despite using unified diagnostic criteria for glaucoma, significant differences in interobserver consistency persist among glaucoma subspecialists. To improve interobserver agreement, it is recommended to provide additional training on standardized diagnostic criteria. Furthermore, for cases with inconsistent diagnoses, long-term follow-up is essential to confirm the diagnosis of glaucoma.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"14 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11545022/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14212460","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the interobserver agreement among glaucoma subspecialists in diagnosing glaucoma and to explore the causes of diagnostic discrepancies. Methods: Three experienced glaucoma subspecialists independently assessed frequency domain optical coherence tomography, fundus color photographs, and static perimetry results from 464 eyes of 275 participants, adhering to unified glaucoma diagnostic criteria. All data were collected from the Wenzhou Glaucoma Progression Study between August 2014 and June 2021. Results: The overall interobserver agreement among the three experts was poor, with a Fleiss' kappa value of 0.149. The kappa values interobserver agreement between pairs of experts ranged from 0.133 to 0.282. In 50 cases, or approximately 10.8%, the three experts reached completely different diagnoses. Agreement was more likely in cases involving larger average cup-to-disc ratios, greater vertical cup-to-disc ratios, more severe visual field defects, and thicker retinal nerve fiber layer measurements, particularly in the temporal and inferior quadrants. High myopia also negatively impacted interobserver agreement. Conclusions: Despite using unified diagnostic criteria for glaucoma, significant differences in interobserver consistency persist among glaucoma subspecialists. To improve interobserver agreement, it is recommended to provide additional training on standardized diagnostic criteria. Furthermore, for cases with inconsistent diagnoses, long-term follow-up is essential to confirm the diagnosis of glaucoma.

评估学术界青光眼亚专科医生对原发性开角型青光眼诊断的一致性。
研究目的本研究旨在评估青光眼亚专科医生在诊断青光眼时的观察者间一致性,并探讨诊断差异的原因。方法:三位经验丰富的青光眼亚专科医生按照统一的青光眼诊断标准,独立评估了275名参与者的464只眼睛的频域光学相干断层扫描、眼底彩色照片和静态验光结果。所有数据均来自 2014 年 8 月至 2021 年 6 月期间的温州青光眼进展研究。研究结果三位专家的总体观察者间一致性较差,Fleiss' kappa 值为 0.149。一对专家之间的观察者间一致性 kappa 值从 0.133 到 0.282 不等。在 50 个病例(约占 10.8%)中,三位专家的诊断结果完全不同。平均杯盘比更大,垂直杯盘比更大,视野缺损更严重,视网膜神经纤维层更厚,尤其是颞侧和下象限的视网膜神经纤维层测量值更大的病例更容易达成一致。高度近视也会对观察者间的一致性产生负面影响。结论:尽管使用了统一的青光眼诊断标准,但青光眼亚专科医生之间的观察者间一致性仍存在显著差异。为了提高观察者之间的一致性,建议提供更多关于标准化诊断标准的培训。此外,对于诊断不一致的病例,长期随访对确诊青光眼至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信