Biometry and fetal weight estimation by two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasonography: an intraobserver and interobserver reliability and agreement study

Objective To evaluate and compare the intraobserver and interobserver reliability and agreement for the biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC), femur length (FL) and estimated fetal weight (EFW) obtained by two-dimensional ultrasound (2D-US) and three-dimensional ultrasound (3D-US). Methods Singleton pregnant women between 24 and 40 weeks were invited to participate in this study. They were examined using 2D-US in a blinded manner, twice by one observer, intercalated by a scan by a second observer, to determine BPD, AC and FL. In each of the three examinations, three 3D-US datasets (head, abdomen and thigh) were acquired for measurements of the same parameters. We determined EFW using Hadlock's formula. Systematic errors between 3D-US and 2D-US were examined using the paired t-test. Reliability and agreement were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), limits of agreement (LoA), SD of differences and proportion of differences below arbitrary points. Results We evaluated 102 singleton pregnancies. No significant systematic error between 2D-US and 3D-US was observed. The ICC values were higher for 3D-US in both intra- and interobserver evaluations; however, only for FL was there no overlap in the 95% CI. The LoA values were wider for 2D-US, suggesting that random errors were smaller when using 3D-US. Additionally, we observed that the SD values determined from 3D-US differences were smaller than those obtained for 2D-US. Higher proportions of differences were below the arbitrarily defined cut-off points when using 3D-US. Conclusion 3D-US improved the reliability and agreement of fetal measurements and EFW compared with 2D-US.

GRBAS and Cape-V Scales: High Reliability and Consensus When Applied at Different Times

Objectives. To evaluate whether the overall dysphonia grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, and strain (GRBAS) scale, and the Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation-Voice (CAPE-V) scale show the same reliability and consensus when applied to the same vocal sample at different times. Study Design. Observational cross-sectional study. Methods. Sixty subjects had their voices recorded according to the tasks proposed in the CAPE-V scale. Vowels /a/ and /i/ were sustained between 3 and 5 seconds. Reproduction of six sentences and spontaneous speech from the request "Tell me about your voice" were analyzed. For the analysis of the GRBAS scale, the sustained vowel and reading tasks of the sentences was used. Auditory-perceptual voice analyses were conducted by three expert speech therapists with more than 5 years of experience and familiar with both the scales. Results. A strong correlation was observed in the intrajudge consensus analysis, both for the GRBAS scale as well as for CAPE-V, with intraclass coefficient values ranging from 0.923 to 0.985. A high degree of correlation between the general GRBAS and CAPE-V grades (coefficient = 0.842) was observed, with similarities in the grades of dysphonia distribution in both scales. The evaluators indicated a mild difficulty in applying the GRBAS scale and low to mild difficulty in applying the CAPE-V scale. The three evaluators agreed when indicating the GRBAS scale as the fastest and the CAPE-V scale as the most sensitive, especially for detecting small changes in voice. Conclusions. The two scales are reliable and are indicated for use in analyzing voice quality.

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scale

Aim. The aim of this study was to evaluate the internal reliability and validity of the BrazilianPortuguese version of Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scale (DASS) among cardiovascular patients. Background. Oral anticoagulation is widely used to prevent and treat thromboembolic events in several conditions, especially in cardiovascular diseases; however, this therapy can induce dissatisfaction and reduce the quality of life. Design. Methodological and cross-sectional research design. Methods. The cultural adaptation of the DASS included the translation and back-translation, discussions with healthcare professionals and patients to ensure conceptual equivalence, semantic evaluation and instrument pretest. The BrazilianPortuguese version of the DASS was tested among subjects followed in a university hospital anticoagulation outpatient clinic. The psychometric properties were assessed by construct validity (convergent, known groups and dimensionality) and internal consistency/reliability (Cronbachs alpha). Results. A total of 180 subjects under oral anticoagulation formed the baseline validation population. DASS total score and SF-36 domain correlations were moderate for General health (r = -0.47, p < 0.01), Vitality (r = -0.44, p < 0.01) and Mental health (r = -0.42, p < 0.01) (convergent). Age and length on oral anticoagulation therapy (in years) were weakly correlated with total DASS score and most of the subscales, except Limitation (r = -0.375, p < 0.01) (Known groups). The Cronbachs alpha coefficient was 0.79 for the total scale, and it ranged from 0.76 (hassles and burdens)0.46 (psychological impact) among the domains, confirming the internal consistency reliability. Conclusions. The BrazilianPortuguese version of the DASS has shown levels of reliability and validity comparable with the original English version. Relevance to clinical practice. Healthcare practitioners and researchers need internationally validated measurement tools to compare outcomes of interventions in clinical management and research tools in oral anticoagulation therapy.

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the scale of oral health outcomes for 5-year-old children (SOHO-5)

Abstract Background Most of the instruments available to measure the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in paediatric populations focus on older children, whereas parental reports are used for very young children. The scale of oral health outcomes for 5-year-old children (SOHO-5) assesses the OHRQoL of very young children through self-reports and parental proxy reports. We aimed to cross-culturally adapt the SOHO-5 to the Brazilian Portuguese language and to assess its reliability and validity. Findings We tested the quality of the cross-cultural adaptation in 2 pilot studies with 40 children aged 5–6 years and their parents. The measurement was tested for reliability and validity on 193 children that attended the paediatric dental screening program at the University of São Paulo. The children were also clinically examined for dental caries. The internal consistency was demonstrated by a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.90 for the children’s self-reports and 0.77 for the parental proxy reports. The test-retest reliability results, which were based on repeated administrations on 159 children, were excellent; the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.98 for parental and 0.92 for child reports. In general, the construct validity was satisfactory and demonstrated consistent and strong associations between the SOHO-5 and different subjective global ratings of oral health, perceived dental treatment need and overall well-being in both the parental and children’s versions (p < 0.001). The SOHO-5 was also able to clearly discriminate between children with and without a history of dental caries (mean scores: 5.8 and 1.1, respectively; p < 0.001). Conclusion The present study demonstrated that the SOHO-5 exhibits satisfactory psychometric properties and is applicable to 5- to 6-year-old children in Brazil.

Reliability and consistency affect the integration of visual depth cues

Abstract Originalsprache (englisch) Visual perception relies on a two-dimensional projection of the viewed scene on the retinas of both eyes. Thus, visual depth has to be reconstructed from a number of different cues that are subsequently integrated to obtain robust depth percepts. Existing models of sensory integration are mainly based on the reliabilities of individual cues and disregard potential cue interactions. In the current study, an extended Bayesian model is proposed that takes into account both cue reliability and consistency. Four experiments were carried out to test this model's predictions. Observers had to judge visual displays of hemi-cylinders with an elliptical cross section, which were constructed to allow for an orthogonal variation of several competing depth cues. In Experiment 1 and 2, observers estimated the cylinder's depth as defined by shading, texture, and motion gradients. The degree of consistency among these cues was systematically varied. It turned out that the extended Bayesian model provided a better fit to the empirical data compared to the traditional model which disregards covariations among cues. To circumvent the potentially problematic assessment of single-cue reliabilities, Experiment 3 used a multiple-observation task, which allowed for estimating perceptual weights from multiple-cue stimuli. Using the same multiple-observation task, the integration of stereoscopic disparity, shading, and texture gradients was examined in Experiment 4. It turned out that less reliable cues were downweighted in the combined percept. Moreover, a specific influence of cue consistency was revealed. Shading and disparity seemed to be processed interactively while other cue combinations could be well described by additive integration rules. These results suggest that cue combination in visual depth perception is highly flexible and depends on single-cue properties as well as on interrelations among cues. The extension of the traditional cue combination model is defended in terms of the necessity for robust perception in ecologically valid environments and the current findings are discussed in the light of emerging computational theories and neuroscientific approaches.

Reproducibility and validity of video screen measurements of gait in children with spastic cerebral palsy

PURPOSE: To determine the reproducibility and validity of video screen measurement (VSM) of sagittal plane joint angles during gait. METHODS: 17 children with spastic cerebral palsy walked on a 10m walkway. Videos were recorded and 3d-instrumented gait analysis was performed. Two investigators measured six sagittal joint/segment angles (shank, ankle, knee, hip, pelvis, and trunk) using a custom-made software package. The intra- and interrater reproducibility were expressed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurements (SEM) and smallest detectable difference (SDD). The agreement between VSM and 3d joint angles was illustrated by Bland-Altman plots and limits of agreement (LoA). RESULTS: Regarding the intrarater reproducibility of VSM, the ICC ranged from 0.99 (shank) to 0.58 (trunk), the SEM from 0.81 degrees (shank) to 5.97 degrees (trunk) and the SDD from 1.80 degrees (shank) to 16.55 degrees (trunk). Regarding the interrater reproducibility, the ICC ranged from 0.99 (shank) to 0.48 (trunk), the SEM from 0.70 degrees (shank) to 6.78 degrees (trunk) and the SDD from 1.95 degrees (shank) to 18.8 degrees (trunk). The LoA between VSM and 3d data ranged from 0.4+/-13.4 degrees (knee extension stance) to 12.0+/-14.6 degrees (ankle dorsiflexion swing). CONCLUSION: When performed by the same observer, VSM mostly allows the detection of relevant changes after an intervention. However, VSM angles differ from 3d-IGA and do not reflect the real sagittal joint position, probably due to the additional movements in the other planes.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

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.

Development and validation of a paediatric long-bone fracture classification. A prospective multicentre study in 13 European paediatric trauma centres

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a child-specific classification system for long bone fractures and to examine its reliability and validity on the basis of a prospective multicentre study. METHODS: Using the sequentially developed classification system, three samples of between 30 and 185 paediatric limb fractures from a pool of 2308 fractures documented in two multicenter studies were analysed in a blinded fashion by eight orthopaedic surgeons, on a total of 5 occasions. Intra- and interobserver reliability and accuracy were calculated. RESULTS: The reliability improved with successive simplification of the classification. The final version resulted in an overall interobserver agreement of κ = 0.71 with no significant difference between experienced and less experienced raters. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the evaluation of the newly proposed classification system resulted in a reliable and routinely applicable system, for which training in its proper use may further improve the reliability. It can be recommended as a useful tool for clinical practice and offers the option for developing treatment recommendations and outcome predictions in the future.

Indigenous knowledge related to climate variability and change: insights from droughts in semi-arid areas of former Makueni District, Kenya

This article describes the indigenous knowledge (IK) that agro-pastoralists in larger Makueni District, Kenya hold and how they use it to monitor, mitigate and adapt to drought. It examines ways of integrating IK into formal monitoring, how to enhance its value and acceptability. Data was collected through target interviews, group discussions and questionnaires covering 127 households in eight villages. Daily rainfall data from 1961–2003 were analysed. Results show that agro-pastoralists hold IK on indicators of rainfall variability; they believe in IK efficacy and they rely on them. Because agro-pastoralists consult additional sources, the authors interpret that IK forms a basic knowledge frame within which agro-pastoralists position and interpret meteorological forecasts. Only a few agro-pastoralists adapt their practices in anticipation of IK-based forecasts partly due to the conditioning of the actors to the high rainfall variability characteristic of the area and partly due to lack of resources. Non-drought factors such as poverty, inadequate resources and lack of preparedness expose agro-pastoralists to drought impacts and limit their adaptive capacity. These factors need to be understood and effectively addressed to increase agro-pastoralists’ decision options and the influence of IK-based forecasts on their decision-making patterns. The limited intergenerational transfer of IK currently threatens its existence in the longer term. One way to ensure its continued existence and use is to integrate IK into the education curriculum and to link IK with formal climate change research through the participation of the local people. However, further studies are necessary to address the reliability and validity of the identified IK indicators of climate variability and change.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.