Background and Purpose-We aimed to study the intrarater and interrater agreement of clinicians attributing DWI-ASPECTS (Diffusion-Weighted Imaging-Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Scores) and DWI-FLAIR (Diffusion-Weighted Imaging-Fluid Attenuated Inversion Recovery) mismatch in patients with acute ischemic stroke referred for mechanical thrombectomy. Methods-Eighteen raters independently scored anonymized magnetic resonance imaging scans of 30 participants from a multicentre thrombectomy trial, in 2 different reading sessions. Agreement was measured using Fleiss κ and Cohen κ statistics. Results-Interrater agreement for DWI-ASPECTS was slight (κ=0.17 [0.14-0.21]). Four raters (22.2%) had a substantial (or higher) intrarater agreement. Dichotomization of the DWI-ASPECTS (0-5 versus 6-10 or 0-6 versus 7-10) increased the interrater agreement to a substantial level (κ=0.62 [0.48-0.75] and 0.68 [0.55-0.79], respectively) and more raters reached a substantial (or higher) intrarater agreement (17/18 raters [94.4%]). Interrater agreement for DWI-FLAIR mismatch was moderate (κ=0.43 [0.33-0.57]); 11 raters (61.1%) reached a substantial (or higher) intrarater agreement. Conclusions-Agreement between clinicians assessing DWI-ASPECTS and DWI-FLAIR mismatch may not be sufficient to make repeatable clinical decisions in mechanical thrombectomy. The dichotomization of the DWI-ASPECTS (0-5 versus 0-6 or 0-6 versus 7-10) improved interrater and intrarater agreement, however, its relevance for patients selection for mechanical thrombectomy needs to be validated in a randomized trial.

DWI-ASPECTS (Diffusion-Weighted Imaging-Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Scores) and DWI-FLAIR (Diffusion-Weighted Imaging-Fluid Attenuated Inversion Recovery) mismatch in thrombectomy candidates an intrarater and interrater agreement study

Ciccio G.
Investigation
;
2018-01-01

Abstract

Background and Purpose-We aimed to study the intrarater and interrater agreement of clinicians attributing DWI-ASPECTS (Diffusion-Weighted Imaging-Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Scores) and DWI-FLAIR (Diffusion-Weighted Imaging-Fluid Attenuated Inversion Recovery) mismatch in patients with acute ischemic stroke referred for mechanical thrombectomy. Methods-Eighteen raters independently scored anonymized magnetic resonance imaging scans of 30 participants from a multicentre thrombectomy trial, in 2 different reading sessions. Agreement was measured using Fleiss κ and Cohen κ statistics. Results-Interrater agreement for DWI-ASPECTS was slight (κ=0.17 [0.14-0.21]). Four raters (22.2%) had a substantial (or higher) intrarater agreement. Dichotomization of the DWI-ASPECTS (0-5 versus 6-10 or 0-6 versus 7-10) increased the interrater agreement to a substantial level (κ=0.62 [0.48-0.75] and 0.68 [0.55-0.79], respectively) and more raters reached a substantial (or higher) intrarater agreement (17/18 raters [94.4%]). Interrater agreement for DWI-FLAIR mismatch was moderate (κ=0.43 [0.33-0.57]); 11 raters (61.1%) reached a substantial (or higher) intrarater agreement. Conclusions-Agreement between clinicians assessing DWI-ASPECTS and DWI-FLAIR mismatch may not be sufficient to make repeatable clinical decisions in mechanical thrombectomy. The dichotomization of the DWI-ASPECTS (0-5 versus 0-6 or 0-6 versus 7-10) improved interrater and intrarater agreement, however, its relevance for patients selection for mechanical thrombectomy needs to be validated in a randomized trial.
2018
Alberta
Magnetic resonance imaging
Neurologists
Reading
Thrombectomy
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12317/99437
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 38
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 37
social impact