Underreporting of Interrater Agreement in Diagnostic Accuracy Studies of Immunohistochemistry in Dermatopathology: A Systematic Review.

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 DERMATOLOGY
American Journal of Dermatopathology Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-04 DOI:10.1097/DAD.0000000000003334
Margaryta Stoieva, Garth Fraga
{"title":"Underreporting of Interrater Agreement in Diagnostic Accuracy Studies of Immunohistochemistry in Dermatopathology: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Margaryta Stoieva, Garth Fraga","doi":"10.1097/DAD.0000000000003334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is widely used in dermatopathology to support diagnostic classification, yet the reproducibility of IHC interpretation is rarely evaluated in studies of diagnostic performance. Because most IHC tests require visual interpretation by pathologists, variability in reader interpretation may influence reported test accuracy. We conducted a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies of dermatopathology IHC diagnostic biomarkers published between 2015 and 2025 to determine how frequently interobserver agreement is reported. Searches of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science identified 1461 abstracts, of which 84 studies met inclusion criteria. Although most studies reported sensitivity and specificity, 73 of 84 (87%) did not report any measure of interobserver agreement. When reported, agreement was most commonly assessed using Cohen kappa statistic, although qualitative descriptions of concordance were also used. To integrate diagnostic accuracy with reproducibility, we explored a composite metric, the kappa-balanced score, defined as the geometric mean of balanced accuracy and Cohen kappa. Kappa-balanced score was calculable in three studies and ranged from 0.62 to 0.93. These findings indicate that interobserver agreement is substantially underreported in dermatopathology IHC studies, highlighting the need for routine reporting of reproducibility metrics in diagnostic accuracy research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50967,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Dermatopathology","volume":" ","pages":"710-716"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Dermatopathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/DAD.0000000000003334","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is widely used in dermatopathology to support diagnostic classification, yet the reproducibility of IHC interpretation is rarely evaluated in studies of diagnostic performance. Because most IHC tests require visual interpretation by pathologists, variability in reader interpretation may influence reported test accuracy. We conducted a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies of dermatopathology IHC diagnostic biomarkers published between 2015 and 2025 to determine how frequently interobserver agreement is reported. Searches of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science identified 1461 abstracts, of which 84 studies met inclusion criteria. Although most studies reported sensitivity and specificity, 73 of 84 (87%) did not report any measure of interobserver agreement. When reported, agreement was most commonly assessed using Cohen kappa statistic, although qualitative descriptions of concordance were also used. To integrate diagnostic accuracy with reproducibility, we explored a composite metric, the kappa-balanced score, defined as the geometric mean of balanced accuracy and Cohen kappa. Kappa-balanced score was calculable in three studies and ranged from 0.62 to 0.93. These findings indicate that interobserver agreement is substantially underreported in dermatopathology IHC studies, highlighting the need for routine reporting of reproducibility metrics in diagnostic accuracy research.

免疫组织化学在皮肤病理学诊断准确性研究中的一致性低报:一项系统综述。
摘要:免疫组织化学(IHC)广泛应用于皮肤病理学诊断分类,但免疫组织化学解释的可重复性在诊断性能的研究中很少得到评估。因为大多数免疫组化测试需要病理学家的视觉解释,读者解释的差异可能会影响报告的测试准确性。我们对2015年至2025年间发表的皮肤病理学IHC诊断生物标志物的诊断准确性研究进行了系统回顾,以确定观察者间一致性报告的频率。PubMed、Embase和Web of Science检索了1461篇摘要,其中84篇研究符合纳入标准。虽然大多数研究报告了敏感性和特异性,但84项研究中有73项(87%)没有报告任何观察者间一致性的测量。当报告时,一致性最常用科恩卡帕统计来评估,尽管也使用一致性的定性描述。为了将诊断准确性与再现性结合起来,我们探索了一种复合指标,即kappa平衡评分,定义为平衡准确性和Cohen kappa的几何平均值。kappa平衡评分在三项研究中可计算,范围为0.62至0.93。这些发现表明,在皮肤病理学免疫组化研究中,观察者之间的一致性基本上被低估了,这突出了在诊断准确性研究中常规报告可重复性指标的必要性。
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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
453
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Dermatopathology offers outstanding coverage of the latest diagnostic approaches and laboratory techniques, as well as insights into contemporary social, legal, and ethical concerns. Each issue features review articles on clinical, technical, and basic science advances and illuminating, detailed case reports. With the The American Journal of Dermatopathology you''ll be able to: -Incorporate step-by-step coverage of new or difficult-to-diagnose conditions from their earliest histopathologic signs to confirmatory immunohistochemical and molecular studies. -Apply the latest basic science findings and clinical approaches to your work right away. -Tap into the skills and expertise of your peers and colleagues the world over peer-reviewed original articles, "Extraordinary cases reports", coverage of practical guidelines, and graphic presentations. -Expand your horizons through the Journal''s idea-generating forum for debating controversial issues and learning from preeminent researchers and clinicians
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书