Kristina Feigin, Christopher Snyder, Joyce Tai, Kevin Stepaniuk, Scott Hetzel
{"title":"兽医专业学生、兽医牙科住院医师和兽医牙科专科医生之间的口内X光片判读协议。","authors":"Kristina Feigin, Christopher Snyder, Joyce Tai, Kevin Stepaniuk, Scott Hetzel","doi":"10.1177/08987564231221344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study evaluated observer variations in the interpretation of radiographic evidence for periodontal disease, tooth resorption, and endodontic disease in dogs. Forty dental radiographs were evaluated for 12 different parameters (periapical destruction of bone, wider than expected root canal, narrower than expected root canal, apical root resorption, loss of alveolar bone, external surface resorption, external replacement resorption, external inflammatory resorption, external cervical root resorption, internal surface resorption, internal replacement resorption, internal inflammatory resorption). Interpretations by 20 veterinary dentists, 10 veterinary dental residents, and 10 veterinary students were analyzed for consistency within groups and between groups by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs [95% CI]). Additionally, the agreement rate between groups compared to histopathological diagnosis, when available, and to a consensus group were evaluated. The results showed fair to good interobserver agreement for all participants when looking at all questions simultaneously (0.578 [0.515-0.635]) and with the consensus group (0.483 [0.451-0.517]). However, questions pertaining to various types of tooth resorption scored the lowest ICCs ranging from 0.005 (-0.311 to 0.321) to 0.189 (-0.105 to 0.402) across individual groups. Students had the lowest agreement compared to the consensus group for all questions (0.383 [0.347-0.421]) with fair to good agreement involving groups of residents (0.501 [0.465-0.538]), recently boarded diplomates (0.541 [0.506-0.578]), and more experienced diplomates (0.545 [0.510-0.582]). While dental radiographs are essential for clinical decision making, this study shows that interpretation of radiographs is highly subjective.</p>","PeriodicalId":17584,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Veterinary Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":"301-311"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intraoral Radiographic Interpretation Agreement Between Veterinary Students, Veterinary Dental Residents and Veterinary Dental Specialists.\",\"authors\":\"Kristina Feigin, Christopher Snyder, Joyce Tai, Kevin Stepaniuk, Scott Hetzel\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08987564231221344\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study evaluated observer variations in the interpretation of radiographic evidence for periodontal disease, tooth resorption, and endodontic disease in dogs. Forty dental radiographs were evaluated for 12 different parameters (periapical destruction of bone, wider than expected root canal, narrower than expected root canal, apical root resorption, loss of alveolar bone, external surface resorption, external replacement resorption, external inflammatory resorption, external cervical root resorption, internal surface resorption, internal replacement resorption, internal inflammatory resorption). Interpretations by 20 veterinary dentists, 10 veterinary dental residents, and 10 veterinary students were analyzed for consistency within groups and between groups by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs [95% CI]). Additionally, the agreement rate between groups compared to histopathological diagnosis, when available, and to a consensus group were evaluated. The results showed fair to good interobserver agreement for all participants when looking at all questions simultaneously (0.578 [0.515-0.635]) and with the consensus group (0.483 [0.451-0.517]). However, questions pertaining to various types of tooth resorption scored the lowest ICCs ranging from 0.005 (-0.311 to 0.321) to 0.189 (-0.105 to 0.402) across individual groups. Students had the lowest agreement compared to the consensus group for all questions (0.383 [0.347-0.421]) with fair to good agreement involving groups of residents (0.501 [0.465-0.538]), recently boarded diplomates (0.541 [0.506-0.578]), and more experienced diplomates (0.545 [0.510-0.582]). While dental radiographs are essential for clinical decision making, this study shows that interpretation of radiographs is highly subjective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Veterinary Dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"301-311\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Veterinary Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08987564231221344\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Veterinary Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08987564231221344","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Intraoral Radiographic Interpretation Agreement Between Veterinary Students, Veterinary Dental Residents and Veterinary Dental Specialists.
This study evaluated observer variations in the interpretation of radiographic evidence for periodontal disease, tooth resorption, and endodontic disease in dogs. Forty dental radiographs were evaluated for 12 different parameters (periapical destruction of bone, wider than expected root canal, narrower than expected root canal, apical root resorption, loss of alveolar bone, external surface resorption, external replacement resorption, external inflammatory resorption, external cervical root resorption, internal surface resorption, internal replacement resorption, internal inflammatory resorption). Interpretations by 20 veterinary dentists, 10 veterinary dental residents, and 10 veterinary students were analyzed for consistency within groups and between groups by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs [95% CI]). Additionally, the agreement rate between groups compared to histopathological diagnosis, when available, and to a consensus group were evaluated. The results showed fair to good interobserver agreement for all participants when looking at all questions simultaneously (0.578 [0.515-0.635]) and with the consensus group (0.483 [0.451-0.517]). However, questions pertaining to various types of tooth resorption scored the lowest ICCs ranging from 0.005 (-0.311 to 0.321) to 0.189 (-0.105 to 0.402) across individual groups. Students had the lowest agreement compared to the consensus group for all questions (0.383 [0.347-0.421]) with fair to good agreement involving groups of residents (0.501 [0.465-0.538]), recently boarded diplomates (0.541 [0.506-0.578]), and more experienced diplomates (0.545 [0.510-0.582]). While dental radiographs are essential for clinical decision making, this study shows that interpretation of radiographs is highly subjective.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Veterinary Dentistry (JOVD) is the official peer-reviewed publication of the Foundation for Veterinary Dentistry. The JOVD provides a continuing education forum for veterinary dental scientists, veterinarians, dentists, and veterinary/dental technicians and hygienists who are engaged in veterinary dental practice. JOVD articles provide practical and scientifically sound information covering not only the medical and surgical aspects, but also specific categories as they relate to clinical practice.