Reliability of Soft Tissue Model Based Implant Surgical Guides; A Methodological Mistake.

S. Sabour, E. V. Dastjerdi
{"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.
基于软组织模型的种植体手术指南的可靠性研究方法论上的错误。
我们很感兴趣地阅读了Maney P及其同事发表在2012年7月的J Oral Implantol上的论文。作者旨在评估基于软组织模型的种植体手术指南的可靠性,报告使用软件评估其准确性。1 .我发现Maney P等人的论文题目不正确,具有误导性。此外,他们报告22个位点(46.81%)被认为是准确的(上颌24个位点中的13个,下颌骨23个位点中的9个)。正如作者在他们的结论中指出的那样,软组织模型并不总是为种植体外科指南的制作提供足够的准确性。信度(精密度)和效度(准确度)是研究中两个不同的方法论问题。灵敏度、特异性、PPV、NPV、似然比阳性(真阳性/假阴性)和似然比阴性(假阳性/真阴性)以及比值比(真结果\假结果-最好大于50)是评估单个测试与金标准相比的有效性(准确性)的测试之一。2-4尚不清楚报告的22个位点(46.81%)被认为是准确的,与上述有效性分析的哪个估计有关。可靠性(可重复性或再现性)是通过不同的统计检验来评估的,如皮尔逊r、最小二乘法和配对t检验,这些都是可靠性分析中常见的错误。简而言之,对于定量变量的类内相关系数(Intra Class Correlation Coefficient, ICC)和定性变量的加权kappa应该谨慎使用,因为kappa也有自己的局限性。关于可靠性或一致性,最好知道在计算kappa值时,只考虑一致的单元格,而不一致的单元格也应该考虑在内,以便达到正确的一致性估计(加权kappa)。作为关键信息,对于信度和效度分析,应该应用适当的测试。
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
×
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