Rating visualization in shoulder arthroscopy: A comparison of the visual analog scale versus a novel shoulder arthroscopy grading scale

Vince W. Lands, D. Avery, A. Malige, J. Stoltzfus, Brett Gibson, Gregory F. Carolan
{"title":"Rating visualization in shoulder arthroscopy: A comparison of the visual analog scale versus a novel shoulder arthroscopy grading scale","authors":"Vince W. Lands, D. Avery, A. Malige, J. Stoltzfus, Brett Gibson, Gregory F. Carolan","doi":"10.4103/joas.joas_8_18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE: To assess the interobserver reliability and intraobserver variability of the visual analog scale (VAS) for visualization in shoulder arthroscopy and compare it to a less variable, more objective novel grading scale, the shoulder arthroscopy grading scale (SAGS). METHODS: Twenty separate 30-s length video clips were created from a library of shoulder arthroscopies. Video clips were randomized and distributed to six sports medicine fellowship-trained surgeons at two time points with a 1-month interval. Each rated visualization according to an adapted VAS and a novel grading scale, the SAGS. RESULTS: The VAS and SAGS both showed an excellent degree of consistency with interobserver reliability among raters with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. Five of six raters demonstrated strong intraobserver variability with the VAS and SAGS with ICC ranging from 0.87 to 0.97 and 0.61 to 0.93, respectively. CONCLUSION: Given the strong-to-excellent degree of consistency in using the VAS and the SAGS, either can be reliably used as a measurement of visualization in shoulder arthroscopy.","PeriodicalId":31882,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedics and Allied Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedics and Allied Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joas.joas_8_18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the interobserver reliability and intraobserver variability of the visual analog scale (VAS) for visualization in shoulder arthroscopy and compare it to a less variable, more objective novel grading scale, the shoulder arthroscopy grading scale (SAGS). METHODS: Twenty separate 30-s length video clips were created from a library of shoulder arthroscopies. Video clips were randomized and distributed to six sports medicine fellowship-trained surgeons at two time points with a 1-month interval. Each rated visualization according to an adapted VAS and a novel grading scale, the SAGS. RESULTS: The VAS and SAGS both showed an excellent degree of consistency with interobserver reliability among raters with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. Five of six raters demonstrated strong intraobserver variability with the VAS and SAGS with ICC ranging from 0.87 to 0.97 and 0.61 to 0.93, respectively. CONCLUSION: Given the strong-to-excellent degree of consistency in using the VAS and the SAGS, either can be reliably used as a measurement of visualization in shoulder arthroscopy.
肩关节镜评分可视化:视觉模拟量表与新型肩关节镜评分量表的比较
目的:评估肩关节镜可视化视觉模拟量表(VAS)的观察者间可靠性和观察者内部可变性,并将其与一种变量较少、更客观的新型评分量表——肩关节镜评分量表(sag)进行比较。方法:从肩关节镜手术库中制作20个独立的30秒长的视频片段。视频片段在两个时间点随机分配给6名运动医学奖学金训练的外科医生,间隔1个月。每个人都根据一个改编的VAS和一个新的分级量表SAGS对可视化进行评分。结果:评分者的VAS和sag均表现出极好的一致性,评分者之间的观察者间信度分别为0.96和0.97,类内相关系数(ICCs)为0.96和0.97。6名评分者中有5名表现出很强的观察者内变异性,VAS和SAGS的ICC分别在0.87至0.97和0.61至0.93之间。结论:考虑到VAS和SAGS的一致性,两者都可以可靠地作为肩关节镜可视化的测量指标。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
27 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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