RESUMO
Introducción: la capilaroscopia es un método no invasivo que permite observar la microvasculatura en el área periungueal. Los resultados informados pueden ser altamente variables entre distintos observadores. A lo largo del tiempo surgieron métodos cuantitativos y semicuantitativos para mejorar la reproducibilidad. Objetivos: conocer el nivel de acuerdo intra e interobservador al informar los diferentes patrones capilaroscópicos en individuos con diferente nivel de entrenamiento. Materiales y métodos: estudio de corte transversal. Participaron médicos reumatólogos especialistas y en formación que habían realizado previamente un curso virtual de capacitación en capilaroscopia. Recibieron 40 imágenes capilaroscópicas proyectadas en una presentación de PowerPoint y debían responder a través de un cuestionario digital. Se evaluó la concordancia de respuestas intra e interobservador. Resultados: se encontró un alto nivel de concordancia global con un kappa 0,66 IC 95% (0,63-0,70) p<0,0000. También en otros grupos como reumatólogos en formación: kappa 0,65 IC 95% (0,60-0,71) p=0,0000, y médicos reumatólogos: kappa 0,67 IC 95% (0,62-0,72) p=0,0000. Conclusiones: el nivel de concordancia encontrado fue globalmente alto, independientemente del nivel de entrenamiento de los profesionales, y de ser o no reumatólogo. La concordancia fue superior cuando se comparó a quienes tenían más de 4 años de experiencia en la realización de videocapilaroscopia.
Introduction: videoapillaroscopy is a non-invasive method that allows the observation of the microvasculature in the periungual area. Reported results can be highly variable between different observers. Over time, quantitative and semi-quantitative methods emerged to improve reproducibility. Objetives: to know the level of intra and interobserver agreement when reporting the different capillaroscopic patterns in individuals with different levels of training. Materials and methods: cross section study. Specialist rheumatologists and those in training who had previously completed a virtual capillaroscopy training course participated. They received 40 capillaroscopic images projected in a PowerPoint presentation and had to issue their response through a digital questionnaire. Concordance of intra and interobserver responses was evaluated. Results: a high level of global agreement was found with a kappa 0.66 CI 95% (0.63-0.70) p<0.0000, also in other groups such as rheumatologists in training: kappa 0.65 CI 95% (0.60-0.71) p=0.0000, physicians rheumatologists: kappa 0.67 95% CI (0.62-0.72) p=0.0000. Conclusions: the level of agreement found was globally high, regardless of the level of training of the professionals, and whether or not they were a rheumatologist. Concordance was higher when compared to those who had more than 4 years of experience performing videocapillaroscopy.
Assuntos
Angioscopia Microscópica , Reumatologia , Esclerose MúltiplaRESUMO
Context: Gleason grade is the most widely used grading system for prostatic carcinoma and is recommended by World Health Organization. It is essential that there should be good interobserver reproducibility of this grading system as it has important implications in patient management. Aim: To assess interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Design: A total of 20 cases of prostatic adenocarcinoma were scored using Gleason grade by 21 general pathologists. The scores were then compared using κ-coefficient and consensus score. Results: For Gleason score groups (2-4, 5-6, 7 and 8-10) overall agreement with consensus score was 68%. Exact agreement for Gleason scores with consensus score was 43.3% and 92.3% within ±1 of the consensus score. κ coefficient for primary grade ranged from -0.32 to 0.92 with 60% of the readings in fair to moderate agreement range; and for secondary grade κ ranged from -0.30 to 0.62 with 78% of the readings in slight to fair agreement range. Kappa for Gleason scores ranged from -0.13 to 0.55 with 80% of the readings in slight to fair agreement range; and for Gleason score groups κ ranged from -0.11 to 0.82 with 68.5% of the readings in fair to moderate agreement range. Conclusions: In our study interobserver reproducibility of Gleason scores among general pathologists was at lower level and it highlights the need to improve the observer reproducibility by continuous educational sessions and taking second opinion in cases where grade could significantly influence management.