{"title":"Reliability of Soft Tissue Model Based Implant Surgical Guides; A Methodological Mistake.","authors":"S. Sabour, E. V. Dastjerdi","doi":"10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00176.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We were interested to read the paper by Maney P and colleagues published in the July 2012 issue of J Oral Implantol. The authors aimed to assess the reliability of soft tissue model based implant surgical guides reported that the accuracy was evaluated using software. 1 I found the manuscript title of Maney P, et al. incorrect and misleading. Moreover, they reported twenty-two sites (46.81%) were considered accurate (13 of 24 maxillary and 9 of 23 mandibular sites). As the authors point out in their conclusion, Soft tissue models do not always provide sufficient accuracy for implant surgical guide fabrication.Reliability (precision) and validity (accuracy) are two different methodological issues in researches. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, likelihood ratio positive (true positive/false negative) and likelihood ratio negative (false positive/ true negative) as well as odds ratio (true results\\false results - preferably more than 50) are among the tests to evaluate the validity (accuracy) of a single test compared to a gold standard.2-4 It is not clear that the reported twenty-two sites (46.81%) which were considered accurate related to which of the above mentioned estimates for validity analysis. Reliability (repeatability or reproducibility) is being assessed by different statistical tests such as Pearson r, least square and paired t.test which all of them are among common mistakes in reliability analysis 5. Briefly, for quantitative variable Intra Class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and for qualitative variables weighted kappa should be used with caution because kappa has its own limitation too. Regarding reliability or agreement, it is good to know that for computing kappa value, just concordant cells are being considered, whereas discordant cells should also be taking into account in order to reach a correct estimation of agreement (Weighted kappa).2-4 As a take home message, for reliability and validity analysis, appropriate tests should be applied.","PeriodicalId":77634,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of oral implantology : implantologist","volume":"846 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of oral implantology : implantologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00176.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Abstract We were interested to read the paper by Maney P and colleagues published in the July 2012 issue of J Oral Implantol. The authors aimed to assess the reliability of soft tissue model based implant surgical guides reported that the accuracy was evaluated using software. 1 I found the manuscript title of Maney P, et al. incorrect and misleading. Moreover, they reported twenty-two sites (46.81%) were considered accurate (13 of 24 maxillary and 9 of 23 mandibular sites). As the authors point out in their conclusion, Soft tissue models do not always provide sufficient accuracy for implant surgical guide fabrication.Reliability (precision) and validity (accuracy) are two different methodological issues in researches. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, likelihood ratio positive (true positive/false negative) and likelihood ratio negative (false positive/ true negative) as well as odds ratio (true results\false results - preferably more than 50) are among the tests to evaluate the validity (accuracy) of a single test compared to a gold standard.2-4 It is not clear that the reported twenty-two sites (46.81%) which were considered accurate related to which of the above mentioned estimates for validity analysis. Reliability (repeatability or reproducibility) is being assessed by different statistical tests such as Pearson r, least square and paired t.test which all of them are among common mistakes in reliability analysis 5. Briefly, for quantitative variable Intra Class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and for qualitative variables weighted kappa should be used with caution because kappa has its own limitation too. Regarding reliability or agreement, it is good to know that for computing kappa value, just concordant cells are being considered, whereas discordant cells should also be taking into account in order to reach a correct estimation of agreement (Weighted kappa).2-4 As a take home message, for reliability and validity analysis, appropriate tests should be applied.