评估马麻醉诱导质量的三种评分系统的可靠性。

IF 2.2 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Marta Villalba-Díez, Leire Benavente-Sánchez, Rocío Bustamante, Isabel Santiago-Llorente, María Villalba-Orero
{"title":"评估马麻醉诱导质量的三种评分系统的可靠性。","authors":"Marta Villalba-Díez, Leire Benavente-Sánchez, Rocío Bustamante, Isabel Santiago-Llorente, María Villalba-Orero","doi":"10.1111/evj.70103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several induction quality scoring systems (IQSS) have been described to evaluate drugs and risk factors of this anaesthetic period in horses, but no attempts to compare their reliability have been performed.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To elucidate the reliability of three IQSS: the visual analogue scale (VAS), a simple descriptive scale (SDS), and a composite grading scale (CGS) proposed by the authors.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Reliability study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eight randomly selected video-recorded anaesthetic inductions from horses that underwent general anaesthesia were evaluated twice by four blinded evaluators with experience in equine anaesthesia, with a 1-month interval between assessments using the three aforementioned IQSS. A total of 64 evaluations per scale were generated. To assess reliability, intra- and inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated based on a mean rating (k = 4), absolute agreement, 2-way random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The inter-rater agreement was classified as moderate to good inter-rater reliability for all the scales, with the highest ICC found for the VAS (0.74 ± 0.11), followed by the CGS and the SDS (0.65 ± 0.22 and 0.63 ± 0.21, respectively). Intra-rater agreement results demonstrated very good reliability for both VAS and SDS (0.82 ± 0.08; 0.81 ± 0.18, respectively) and excellent reliability for the CGS (0.91 ± 0.08).</p><p><strong>Main limitations: </strong>The use of video-recordings instead of in situ evaluations, as the absence of audio may affect the assessment. Additionally, these findings are applicable only when free inductions are evaluated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The VAS and the novel CGS are reliable IQSS in horses, as are the widely used SDS. As the SDS are inconsistent across the literature, the VAS would be advised if multiple evaluators assess induction quality for research purposes, whereas the CGS would be selected for studies involving a single observer. We suggest routine inclusion of the VAS in the evaluation of the anaesthetic induction in horses.</p>","PeriodicalId":11796,"journal":{"name":"Equine Veterinary Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of three scoring systems for assessing quality of anaesthetic induction in horses.\",\"authors\":\"Marta Villalba-Díez, Leire Benavente-Sánchez, Rocío Bustamante, Isabel Santiago-Llorente, María Villalba-Orero\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/evj.70103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several induction quality scoring systems (IQSS) have been described to evaluate drugs and risk factors of this anaesthetic period in horses, but no attempts to compare their reliability have been performed.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To elucidate the reliability of three IQSS: the visual analogue scale (VAS), a simple descriptive scale (SDS), and a composite grading scale (CGS) proposed by the authors.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Reliability study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eight randomly selected video-recorded anaesthetic inductions from horses that underwent general anaesthesia were evaluated twice by four blinded evaluators with experience in equine anaesthesia, with a 1-month interval between assessments using the three aforementioned IQSS. A total of 64 evaluations per scale were generated. To assess reliability, intra- and inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated based on a mean rating (k = 4), absolute agreement, 2-way random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The inter-rater agreement was classified as moderate to good inter-rater reliability for all the scales, with the highest ICC found for the VAS (0.74 ± 0.11), followed by the CGS and the SDS (0.65 ± 0.22 and 0.63 ± 0.21, respectively). Intra-rater agreement results demonstrated very good reliability for both VAS and SDS (0.82 ± 0.08; 0.81 ± 0.18, respectively) and excellent reliability for the CGS (0.91 ± 0.08).</p><p><strong>Main limitations: </strong>The use of video-recordings instead of in situ evaluations, as the absence of audio may affect the assessment. Additionally, these findings are applicable only when free inductions are evaluated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The VAS and the novel CGS are reliable IQSS in horses, as are the widely used SDS. As the SDS are inconsistent across the literature, the VAS would be advised if multiple evaluators assess induction quality for research purposes, whereas the CGS would be selected for studies involving a single observer. We suggest routine inclusion of the VAS in the evaluation of the anaesthetic induction in horses.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Equine Veterinary Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Equine Veterinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.70103\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Equine Veterinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.70103","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:已有几种诱导质量评分系统(IQSS)用于评估马麻醉期的药物和危险因素,但没有尝试比较它们的可靠性。目的:探讨作者提出的视觉模拟量表(visual analogue scale, VAS)、简单描述性量表(simple描述性scale, SDS)和复合分级量表(composite grading scale, CGS)的可靠性。研究设计:可靠性研究。方法:随机选择8个接受全身麻醉的马的麻醉诱导录像,由4个具有马麻醉经验的盲法评估者进行两次评估,评估间隔1个月,使用上述三个IQSS。每个比额表共产生64个评价。为了评估信度,基于平均评级(k = 4)、绝对一致性、双向随机效应模型计算了评级内和评级间的类内相关系数(ICC)及其95%置信区间(CI)。结果:所有量表的量表间信度一致性均为中等至良好,其中VAS的ICC最高(0.74±0.11),其次是CGS和SDS(分别为0.65±0.22和0.63±0.21)。评分内一致性结果显示VAS和SDS的信度非常好(分别为0.82±0.08;0.81±0.18),CGS的信度非常好(0.91±0.08)。主要限制:使用录像代替现场评价,因为没有音频可能会影响评价。此外,这些发现仅适用于评估自由诱导。结论:VAS和新型CGS与广泛使用的SDS一样,是可靠的马的IQSS。由于文献中的SDS不一致,如果有多个评估者为研究目的评估诱导质量,则建议使用VAS,而对于涉及单个观察者的研究,则选择CGS。我们建议在评估马的麻醉诱导时常规纳入VAS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reliability of three scoring systems for assessing quality of anaesthetic induction in horses.

Background: Several induction quality scoring systems (IQSS) have been described to evaluate drugs and risk factors of this anaesthetic period in horses, but no attempts to compare their reliability have been performed.

Objectives: To elucidate the reliability of three IQSS: the visual analogue scale (VAS), a simple descriptive scale (SDS), and a composite grading scale (CGS) proposed by the authors.

Study design: Reliability study.

Methods: Eight randomly selected video-recorded anaesthetic inductions from horses that underwent general anaesthesia were evaluated twice by four blinded evaluators with experience in equine anaesthesia, with a 1-month interval between assessments using the three aforementioned IQSS. A total of 64 evaluations per scale were generated. To assess reliability, intra- and inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated based on a mean rating (k = 4), absolute agreement, 2-way random-effects model.

Results: The inter-rater agreement was classified as moderate to good inter-rater reliability for all the scales, with the highest ICC found for the VAS (0.74 ± 0.11), followed by the CGS and the SDS (0.65 ± 0.22 and 0.63 ± 0.21, respectively). Intra-rater agreement results demonstrated very good reliability for both VAS and SDS (0.82 ± 0.08; 0.81 ± 0.18, respectively) and excellent reliability for the CGS (0.91 ± 0.08).

Main limitations: The use of video-recordings instead of in situ evaluations, as the absence of audio may affect the assessment. Additionally, these findings are applicable only when free inductions are evaluated.

Conclusions: The VAS and the novel CGS are reliable IQSS in horses, as are the widely used SDS. As the SDS are inconsistent across the literature, the VAS would be advised if multiple evaluators assess induction quality for research purposes, whereas the CGS would be selected for studies involving a single observer. We suggest routine inclusion of the VAS in the evaluation of the anaesthetic induction in horses.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Equine Veterinary Journal
Equine Veterinary Journal 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
13.60%
发文量
161
审稿时长
6-16 weeks
期刊介绍: Equine Veterinary Journal publishes evidence to improve clinical practice or expand scientific knowledge underpinning equine veterinary medicine. This unrivalled international scientific journal is published 6 times per year, containing peer-reviewed articles with original and potentially important findings. Contributions are received from sources worldwide.
×
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