Test-retest reliability of the nociceptive withdrawal reflex and electrical pain thresholds after single and repeated stimulation in patients with chronic low back pain

Recent studies have shown that the nociceptive withdrawal reflex threshold (NWR-T) and the electrical pain threshold (EP-T) are reliable measures in pain-free populations. However, it is necessary to investigate the reliability of these measures in patients with chronic pain in order to translate these techniques from laboratory to clinic. The aims of this study were to determine the test-retest reliability of the NWR-T and EP-T after single and repeated (temporal summation) electrical stimulation in a group of patients with chronic low back pain, and to investigate the association between the NWR-T and the EP-T. To this end, 25 patients with chronic pain participated in three identical sessions, separated by 1 week in average, in which the NWR-T and the EP-T to single and repeated stimulation were measured. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), and Bland-Altman analysis. The association between the thresholds was assessed using the coefficient of determination (r (2)). The results showed good-to-excellent reliability for both NWR-T and EP-T in all cases, with average ICC values ranging 0.76-0.90 and average CV values ranging 12.0-17.7%. The association between thresholds was better after repeated stimulation than after single stimulation, with average r (2) values of 0.83 and 0.56, respectively. In conclusion, the NWR-T and the EP-T are reliable assessment tools for assessing the sensitivity of spinal nociceptive pathways in patients with chronic pain.

Inter- and intraobserver reliability of the COFAS end-stage ankle arthritis classification system

End-stage ankle arthritis should have an appropriate classification to assist surgeons in the management of end-stage ankle arthritis. Outcomes research also requires a classification system to stratify patients appropriately.

Reliability, construct and criterion validity of the KIDSCREEN-10 score: a short measure for children and adolescents' well-being and health-related quality of life

Background To assess the criterion and construct validity of the KIDSCREEN-10 well-being and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score, a short version of the KIDSCREEN-52 and KIDSCREEN-27 instruments. Methods The child self-report and parent report versions of the KIDSCREEN-10 were tested in a sample of 22,830 European children and adolescents aged 8–18 and their parents (n = 16,237). Correlation with the KIDSCREEN-52 and associations with other generic HRQoL measures, physical and mental health, and socioeconomic status were examined. Score differences by age, gender, and country were investigated. Results Correlations between the 10-item KIDSCREEN score and KIDSCREEN-52 scales ranged from r = 0.24 to 0.72 (r = 0.27–0.72) for the self-report version (proxy-report version). Coefficients below r = 0.5 were observed for the KIDSCREEN-52 dimensions Financial Resources and Being Bullied only. Cronbach alpha was 0.82 (0.78), test–retest reliability was ICC = 0.70 (0.67) for the self- (proxy-)report version. Correlations between other children self-completed HRQoL questionnaires and KIDSCREEN-10 ranged from r = 0.43 to r = 0.63 for the KIDSCREEN children self-report and r = 0.22–0.40 for the KIDSCREEN parent proxy report. Known group differences in HRQoL between physically/mentally healthy and ill children were observed in the KIDSCREEN-10 self and proxy scores. Associations with self-reported psychosomatic complaints were r = −0.52 (−0.36) for the KIDSCREEN-10 self-report (proxy-report). Statistically significant differences in KIDSCREEN-10 self and proxy scores were found by socioeconomic status, age, and gender. Conclusions Our results indicate that the KIDSCREEN-10 provides a valid measure of a general HRQoL factor in children and adolescents, but the instrument does not represent well most of the single dimensions of the original KIDSCREEN-52. Test–retest reliability was slightly below a priori defined thresholds.

Reliability and discriminatory power of methods for dental plaque quantification

This in situ study evaluated the discriminatory power and reliability of methods of dental plaque quantification and the relationship between visual indices (VI) and fluorescence camera (FC) to detect plaque.

Inter- and intraobserver reliability of predefined diagnostic levels in high-resolution sonography of the carpal tunnel syndrome - a validation study on healthy volunteers

High-resolution ultrasound is becoming increasingly important in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Most studies define cut-off values of the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the median nerve in different locations. The individual range of nerve swelling, the size of the nerve, and its CSA are not addressed. The aim of the study is to define the intra- and interobserver reliability of diagnostic ultrasound using two different cross-sectional areas of the median nerve at the carpal tunnel in predefined locations.

The inter-rater reliability of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index

The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) is a validated clinical prognostic model for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Our goal was to assess the PESI's inter-rater reliability in patients diagnosed with PE. We prospectively identified consecutive patients diagnosed with PE in the emergency department of a Swiss teaching hospital. For all patients, resident and attending physician raters independently collected the 11 PESI variables. The raters then calculated the PESI total point score and classified patients into one of five PESI risk classes (I-V) and as low (risk classes I/II) versus higher-risk (risk classes III-V). We examined the inter-rater reliability for each of the 11 PESI variables, the PESI total point score, assignment to each of the five PESI risk classes, and classification of patients as low versus higher-risk using kappa ( ) and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Among 48 consecutive patients with an objective diagnosis of PE, reliability coefficients between resident and attending physician raters were > 0.60 for 10 of the 11 variables comprising the PESI. The inter-rater reliability for the PESI total point score (ICC: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.94), PESI risk class assignment ( : 0.81, 95% CI: 0.66-0.94), and the classification of patients as low versus higher-risk ( : 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-0.98) was near perfect. Our results demonstrate the high reproducibility of the PESI, supporting the use of the PESI for risk stratification of patients with PE.

Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study

Objectives To examine the extent of multiplicity of data in trial reports and to assess the impact of multiplicity on meta-analysis results. Design Empirical study on a cohort of Cochrane systematic reviews. Data sources All Cochrane systematic reviews published from issue 3 in 2006 to issue 2 in 2007 that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD). We retrieved trial reports contributing to the first SMD result in each review, and downloaded review protocols. We used these SMDs to identify a specific outcome for each meta-analysis from its protocol. Review methods Reviews were eligible if SMD results were based on two to ten randomised trials and if protocols described the outcome. We excluded reviews if they only presented results of subgroup analyses. Based on review protocols and index outcomes, two observers independently extracted the data necessary to calculate SMDs from the original trial reports for any intervention group, time point, or outcome measure compatible with the protocol. From the extracted data, we used Monte Carlo simulations to calculate all possible SMDs for every meta-analysis. Results We identified 19 eligible meta-analyses (including 83 trials). Published review protocols often lacked information about which data to choose. Twenty-four (29%) trials reported data for multiple intervention groups, 30 (36%) reported data for multiple time points, and 29 (35%) reported the index outcome measured on multiple scales. In 18 meta-analyses, we found multiplicity of data in at least one trial report; the median difference between the smallest and largest SMD results within a meta-analysis was 0.40 standard deviation units (range 0.04 to 0.91). Conclusions Multiplicity of data can affect the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To reduce the risk of bias, reviews and meta-analyses should comply with prespecified protocols that clearly identify time points, intervention groups, and scales of interest.

Hip Osteoarthritis MRI Scoring System (HOAMS): reliability and associations with radiographic and clinical findings

To develop a semiquantitative MRI-based scoring system (HOAMS) of hip osteoarthritis (OA) and test its reliability and validity.

Clinical application and reliability of a post abdominal surgery pain assessment scale (PASPAS) in horses

The aim of this study was to refine a multi-dimensional scale based on physiological and behavioural parameters, known as the post abdominal surgery pain assessment scale (PASPAS), to quantify pain after laparotomy in horses. After a short introduction, eight observers used the scale to assess eight horses at multiple time points after laparotomy. In addition, a single observer was used to test the correlation of each parameter with the total pain index in 34 patients, and the effect of general anaesthesia on PASPAS was investigated in a control group of eight horses. Inter-observer variability was low (coefficient of variation 0.3), which indicated good reliability of PASPAS. The correlation of individual parameters with the total pain index differed between parameters. PASPAS, which was not influenced by general anaesthesia, was a useful tool to evaluate pain in horses after abdominal surgery and may also be useful to investigate analgesic protocols or for teaching purposes.

The postoperative COFAS end-stage ankle arthritis classification system: interobserver and intraobserver reliability

End-stage ankle arthritis is operatively treated with numerous designs of total ankle replacement and different techniques for ankle fusion. For superior comparison of these procedures, outcome research requires a classification system to stratify patients appropriately. A postoperative 4-type classification system was designed by 6 fellowship-trained foot and ankle surgeons. Four surgeons reviewed blinded patient profiles and radiographs on 2 occasions to determine the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the classification. Excellent interobserver reliability (κ = .89) and intraobserver reproducibility (κ = .87) were demonstrated for the postoperative classification system. In conclusion, the postoperative Canadian Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (COFAS) end-stage ankle arthritis classification system appears to be a valid tool to evaluate the outcome of patients operated for end-stage ankle arthritis.

German validation of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) II: reliability, validity, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity

The German version of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) has proven to show very high model fit in confirmative factor analyses with the established factors inattention/memory problems, hyperactivity/restlessness, impulsivity/emotional lability, and problems with self-concept in both large healthy control and ADHD patient samples. This study now presents data on the psychometric properties of the German CAARS-self-report (CAARS-S) and observer-report (CAARS-O) questionnaires.

Validity evidence and reliability of a Simulated Patient Feedback Instrument

In the training of healthcare professionals, one of the advantages of communication training with simulated patients (SPs) is the SP's ability to provide direct feedback to students after a simulated clinical encounter. The quality of SP feedback must be monitored, especially because it is well known that feedback can have a profound effect on student performance. Due to the current lack of valid and reliable instruments to assess the quality of SP feedback, our study examined the validity and reliability of one potential instrument, the 'modified Quality of Simulated Patient Feedback Form' (mQSF). Methods Content validity of the mQSF was assessed by inviting experts in the area of simulated clinical encounters to rate the importance of the mQSF items. Moreover, generalizability theory was used to examine the reliability of the mQSF. Our data came from videotapes of clinical encounters between six simulated patients and six students and the ensuing feedback from the SPs to the students. Ten faculty members judged the SP feedback according to the items on the mQSF. Three weeks later, this procedure was repeated with the same faculty members and recordings. Results All but two items of the mQSF received importance ratings of > 2.5 on a four-point rating scale. A generalizability coefficient of 0.77 was established with two judges observing one encounter. Conclusions The findings for content validity and reliability with two judges suggest that the mQSF is a valid and reliable instrument to assess the quality of feedback provided by simulated patients.