Interrater reliability of RheuMetric checklist scales for physician global assessment, inflammation, damage and patient distress.

IF 2.1 Q3 RHEUMATOLOGY
Rheumatology Advances in Practice Pub Date : 2024-11-06 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1093/rap/rkae137
Juan Schmukler, Isabel Castrejon, Tengfei Li, Joel A Block, Theodore Pincus
{"title":"Interrater reliability of RheuMetric checklist scales for physician global assessment, inflammation, damage and patient distress.","authors":"Juan Schmukler, Isabel Castrejon, Tengfei Li, Joel A Block, Theodore Pincus","doi":"10.1093/rap/rkae137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To analyse interrater reliability of four RheuMetric checklist 0-10 visual numerical scales (VNSs) of physician global assessment (DOCGL), inflammation or reversible findings (DOCINF), organ damage or irreversible findings (DOCDAM) and patient distress or findings explained by fibromyalgia, depression or anxiety (DOCDIS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study was performed of data from a rheumatology fellows' continuity clinic at Rush University. Each rheumatology patient seen in routine care with any diagnosis completed a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ). Both the rheumatology fellow and attending rheumatologist independently completed RheuMetric estimates at the same visit for DOCGL, DOCINF, DOCDAM, DOCDIS and the proportion of DOCGL explained by each subglobal estimate (totalling 100%). Agreement between the two assessors was compared using paired <i>t</i>-tests, Spearman correlation coefficients, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Lin's concordance correlation coefficients (LCCCs) and Bland-Altman plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 112 patients, mean levels of DOCINF were highest in inflammatory diseases, DOCDAM in osteoarthritis (OA) and DOCDIS in primary fibromyalgia (FM). However, mean DOCDAM was as high as DOCINF in inflammatory diseases. No statistically significant differences were seen between scores from attending rheumatologists and fellows. Agreement within 2/10 ranged from 60% for DOCGL to 71% for DOICINF and DOCDAM. Spearman correlations were 0.49-0.65, ICCs were 0.46-0.63 and LCCCs were 0.46-0.62 between rheumatologist and fellow, indicating moderate agreement; reliability was slightly higher for each subglobal VNS than for DOCGL.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RheuMetric 0-10 DOCGL, DOCINF, DOCDAM and DOCDIS have moderate interrater reliability and are feasible in routine care to estimate patient status beyond DOCGL for improved management decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":21350,"journal":{"name":"Rheumatology Advances in Practice","volume":"8 4","pages":"rkae137"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11630516/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rheumatology Advances in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rap/rkae137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To analyse interrater reliability of four RheuMetric checklist 0-10 visual numerical scales (VNSs) of physician global assessment (DOCGL), inflammation or reversible findings (DOCINF), organ damage or irreversible findings (DOCDAM) and patient distress or findings explained by fibromyalgia, depression or anxiety (DOCDIS).

Methods: A retrospective study was performed of data from a rheumatology fellows' continuity clinic at Rush University. Each rheumatology patient seen in routine care with any diagnosis completed a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ). Both the rheumatology fellow and attending rheumatologist independently completed RheuMetric estimates at the same visit for DOCGL, DOCINF, DOCDAM, DOCDIS and the proportion of DOCGL explained by each subglobal estimate (totalling 100%). Agreement between the two assessors was compared using paired t-tests, Spearman correlation coefficients, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Lin's concordance correlation coefficients (LCCCs) and Bland-Altman plots.

Results: In 112 patients, mean levels of DOCINF were highest in inflammatory diseases, DOCDAM in osteoarthritis (OA) and DOCDIS in primary fibromyalgia (FM). However, mean DOCDAM was as high as DOCINF in inflammatory diseases. No statistically significant differences were seen between scores from attending rheumatologists and fellows. Agreement within 2/10 ranged from 60% for DOCGL to 71% for DOICINF and DOCDAM. Spearman correlations were 0.49-0.65, ICCs were 0.46-0.63 and LCCCs were 0.46-0.62 between rheumatologist and fellow, indicating moderate agreement; reliability was slightly higher for each subglobal VNS than for DOCGL.

Conclusion: RheuMetric 0-10 DOCGL, DOCINF, DOCDAM and DOCDIS have moderate interrater reliability and are feasible in routine care to estimate patient status beyond DOCGL for improved management decisions.

RheuMetric检查表量表在医生总体评估、炎症、损伤和患者痛苦方面的内部可靠性。
目的:分析医师整体评估(DOCGL)、炎症或可逆结果(DOCINF)、器官损伤或不可逆结果(DOCDAM)和患者痛苦或纤维肌痛、抑郁或焦虑(DOCDIS)四种风湿病检查表0-10视觉数值量表(VNSs)的互信度。方法:回顾性研究拉什大学风湿病研究员连续性诊所的数据。每一位在常规护理中被诊断出任何疾病的风湿病患者都完成了多维健康评估问卷(MDHAQ)。风湿病学研究员和风湿病主治医师在同一次就诊时独立完成了对DOCGL、DOCINF、DOCDAM、DOCDIS的RheuMetric估计,以及每个子全球估计解释的DOCGL比例(总计100%)。采用配对t检验、Spearman相关系数、类内相关系数(ICCs)、Lin’s一致性相关系数(LCCCs)和Bland-Altman图比较两个评估者之间的一致性。结果:112例患者中,DOCINF平均水平在炎性疾病中最高,DOCDAM在骨关节炎(OA)中最高,DOCDIS在原发性纤维肌痛(FM)中最高。炎症性疾病中DOCDAM的平均值与DOCINF一样高。在风湿病主治医师和研究员的评分之间没有统计学上的显著差异。2/10协议范围从DOCGL的60%到DOICINF和DOCDAM的71%。在风湿病学家和研究对象之间,Spearman相关性为0.49-0.65,ICCs为0.46-0.63,LCCCs为0.46-0.62,表明中度一致;每个子全局VNS的可靠性略高于DOCGL。结论:RheuMetric 0-10 DOCGL、DOCINF、DOCDAM和DOCDIS具有中等的相互可靠性,在常规护理中可用于评估超出DOCGL的患者状态,以改善管理决策。
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
Rheumatology Advances in Practice
Rheumatology Advances in Practice Medicine-Rheumatology
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
3.20%
发文量
197
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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