Intra- and inter-rater reliability and agreement of stimulus electrodiagnostic tests in post-COVID-19 patients.

Background. COVID-19 patients may present sequelae, such as neuromuscular electrophysiological disorders (NED), that can be assessed using the stimulus electrodiagnostic test (SET). However, little is known about the reliability and agreement of the SET in post-COVID-19 patients.Objective. We aimed to verify the intra-inter-rater reliability and agreement of SET measurements in the rectus femoris, vastus medialis, vastus lateralis, tibialis anterior, and gastrocnemius lateralis (GL) in post-COVID-19 participants.Methods. We designed an observational prospective study to evaluate 20 (10 males and 10 females) post-COVID-19 patients, age: 44.95 ± 11.07 years, weight: 87.99 ± 19.08 kg, height: 1.69 ± 0.09 m. Two independent raters took two evaluations using the SET on selected muscles. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% limits of the agreement defined the quality and magnitude of the measures.Results. For intra-rater reliability, all measurements presented correlations classified as high or very high (ICC: 0.71-1.0). For inter-rater reliability, the rheobase, chronaxie, accommodation, and accommodation index presented high or very high correlations, except for the accommodation index of the GL (ICC = 0.65), which was moderate.Conclusion. The reliability of the SET obtained by independent raters was very high, except for the GL accommodation, which presented moderate ICC. Therefore, the SET is a reliable tool for evaluating NED in post-COVID-19 patients.

Magnetic resonance imaging organ at risk delineation for nasopharyngeal radiotherapy: Measuring the effectiveness of an educational intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrates superior soft tissue contrast and is increasingly being used in radiotherapy planning. This study evaluated the impact of an education workshop in minimising inter-observer variation (IOV) for nasopharyngeal organs at risk (OAR) delineation on MRI. METHODS: Ten observers delineated 14 OARs on 4 retrospective nasopharyngeal MRI data sets. Standard contouring guidelines were provided pre-workshop. Following an education workshop on MRI OAR delineation, observers blinded to their original contours repeated the 14 OAR delineations. For comparison, reference volumes were delineated by two head and neck radiation oncologists. IOV was evaluated using dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD) and relative volume. Location of largest deviations was evaluated with centroid values. Observer confidence pre- and post-workshop was also recorded using a 6-point Likert scale. The workshop was deemed beneficial for an OAR if ≥50% of observers mean scores improved in any metric and ≥50% of observers' confidence improved. RESULTS: All OARs had ≥50% of observers improve in at least one metric. Base of tongue, larynx, spinal cord and right temporal lobe were the only OARs achieving a mean DSC score of ≥0.7. Base of tongue, left and right lacrimal glands, larynx, left optic nerve and right parotid gland all exhibited statistically significant HD improvements post-workshop (P < 0.05). Brainstem and left and right temporal lobes all had statistically significant relative volume improvements post-workshop (P < 0.05). Post-workshop observer confidence improvement was observed for all OARs (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The educational workshop reduced IOV and improved observers' confidence when delineating nasopharyngeal OARs on MRI.

Global uncertainty in the diagnosis of neurological complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection by both neurologists and non-neurologists: An international inter-observer variability study.

INTRODUCTION: Uniform case definitions are required to ensure harmonised reporting of neurological syndromes associated with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, it is unclear how clinicians perceive the relative importance of SARS-CoV-2 in neurological syndromes, which risks under- or over-reporting. METHODS: We invited clinicians through global networks, including the World Federation of Neurology, to assess ten anonymised vignettes of SARS-CoV-2 neurological syndromes. Using standardised case definitions, clinicians assigned a diagnosis and ranked association with SARS-CoV-2. We compared diagnostic accuracy and assigned association ranks between different settings and specialties and calculated inter-rater agreement for case definitions as "poor" (κ ≤ 0.4), "moderate" or "good" (κ > 0.6). RESULTS: 1265 diagnoses were assigned by 146 participants from 45 countries on six continents. The highest correct proportion were cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST, 95.8%), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS, 92.4%) and headache (91.6%) and the lowest encephalitis (72.8%), psychosis (53.8%) and encephalopathy (43.2%). Diagnostic accuracy was similar between neurologists and non-neurologists (median score 8 vs. 7/10, p = 0.1). Good inter-rater agreement was observed for five diagnoses: cranial neuropathy, headache, myelitis, CVST, and GBS and poor agreement for encephalopathy. In 13% of vignettes, clinicians incorrectly assigned lowest association ranks, regardless of setting and specialty. CONCLUSION: The case definitions can help with reporting of neurological complications of SARS-CoV-2, also in settings with few neurologists. However, encephalopathy, encephalitis, and psychosis were often misdiagnosed, and clinicians underestimated the association with SARS-CoV-2. Future work should refine the case definitions and provide training if global reporting of neurological syndromes associated with SARS-CoV-2 is to be robust.

Diagnostic yield, safety, and advantages of ultra-low dose chest CT compared to chest radiography in early stage suspected SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: A retrospective observational study.

ABSTRACT: To determine the role of ultra-low dose chest computed tomography (uld CT) compared to chest radiographs in patients with laboratory-confirmed early stage SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.Chest radiographs and uld CT of 12 consecutive suspected SARS-CoV-2 patients performed up to 48 hours from hospital admission were reviewed by 2 radiologists. Dosimetry and descriptive statistics of both modalities were analyzed.On uld CT, parenchymal abnormalities compatible with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were detected in 10/12 (83%) patients whereas on chest X-ray in, respectively, 8/12 (66%) and 5/12 (41%) patients for reader 1 and 2. The average increment of diagnostic performance of uld CT compared to chest X-ray was 29%. The average effective dose was, respectively, of 0.219 and 0.073 mSv.Uld CT detects substantially more lung injuries in symptomatic patients with suspected early stage SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia compared to chest radiographs, with a significantly better inter-reader agreement, at the cost of a slightly higher equivalent radiation dose.

Cross-Institutional Evaluation of the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG Immunoassay.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a cross-institutional approach to verify the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay and to document the kinetics of the serological response. METHODS: We conducted analytical performance evaluation studies using the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay on 5 Abbott ARCHITECT i2000 automated analyzers at 2 academic medical centers. RESULTS: Within-run and between-run coefficients of variance (CVs) for the antibody assay did not exceed 5.6% and 8.6%, respectively, for each institution. Quantitative and qualitative results agreed for lithium heparin plasma, EDTA-plasma and serum specimen types. Results for all SARS-CoV-2 IgG-positive and -negative specimens were concordant among analyzers except for 1 specimen at 1 institution. Qualitative and quantitative agreement was observed for specimens exchanged between institutions. All patients had detectable antibodies by day 10 from symptom onset and maintained seropositivity throughout specimen procurement. CONCLUSIONS: The analytical performance characteristics of the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay within and between 2 academic medical center clinical laboratories were acceptable for widespread clinical-laboratory use.

The effect of a training webinar on decreasing inter-observer variability in making a radiologic diagnosis of bronchiectasis.

Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis is a clinically important disease with an estimated 340,000-522,000 persons living with the disease and 70,000 being diagnosed annually. The radiographic diagnosis remains a pivotal part of recognizing the disease due to its protean clinical manifestations. As physicians are sensitized to this disease, a greater proportion of patients are being diagnosed with mild to moderate bronchiectasis. Despite the established use of CT chest as the main tool for making a radiologic diagnosis of bronchiectasis, the literature supporting the process of making that diagnosis is somewhat sparse. Concurrently, there has been an increased trend to have Web-based radiologic tutorials due to its convenience, the ability of the learner to set the pace of learning and the reduced cost compared to in-person learning. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this trend. We wanted to look carefully at the effect of a Web-based training session on interrater reliability. Agreement was calculated as percentages and kappa and prevalence adjusted kappa calculated. We found that a single Web-based training session had little effect on the variability and accuracy of diagnosis of bronchiectasis. Larger studies are needed in this area with multiple training sessions.

Ten conditions where lung ultrasonography may fail: limits, pitfalls and lessons learned from a computer-aided algorithmic approach.

Lung ultrasonography provides relevant information on morphological and functional changes occurring in the lungs. However, it correlates weakly with pulmonary congestion and extra vascular lung water. Moreover, there is lack of consensus on scoring systems and acquisition protocols. The automation of this technique may provide promising easy-to-use clinical tools to reduce inter- and intra-observer variability and to standardize scores, allowing faster data collection without increased costs and patients risks.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Choice of Treatment for Hand Fractures: A Single-Centre Concordance Study.

Background: Management of hand trauma has evolved to incorporate assessment, treatment and rehabilitation of patients in a 'one-stop' clinic on initial presentation. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the choice of treatment for hand fractures using inter-rater agreement between surgeons. Methods: All patients with hand fractures during the COVID-19 lockdown from March to May 2020 were included in the study. Two experienced hand surgeons blinded to management and outcomes independently reviewed radiographic images and relevant clinical history to provide their opinion on optimal treatment. Weighted kappa analysis was performed to determine concordance and inter-rater agreement between the two surgeons and actual management. Results: The study included 82 patients (62 men and 20 women) with a mean age of 40.3 (SD 19.7). The injuries occurred most often at home following an accident (34%) or a fall (28%). Fractures involved the metacarpals in 29 patients and the distal phalanx in 22 patients. Thirty-five patients underwent surgery, whereas 47 were managed conservatively. Overall agreement between actual management and consultant A and consultant B was moderate (κ = 0.55, p < 0.0001 and κ = 0.63, p < 0.0001, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed a weak agreement between actual management of metacarpal fractures and consultant A and consultant B (κ = 0.22, p = 0.29 and κ = 0.47, p = 0.02, respectively). Inter-rater agreement was substantial for management of metacarpal fractures (κ = 0.73, p < 0.0001), but weak for distal phalanx fractures (κ = 0.29, p = 0.03). Conclusion: Our study has shown that overall management of hand fractures remained optimised throughout the pandemic. However, a lack of concordance was observed in the management of metacarpals. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic).

Clinical importance of second-opinion interpretations of abdominal imaging studies in a cancer hospital and its impact on patient management.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the quality of outside hospital imaging and associated reports submitted to us for reinterpretation related to clinical care at our tertiary cancer center. We compared the initial study interpretations to that of interpretations performed by subspecialty-trained abdominal radiologists at our center and whether this resulted in a change in inpatient treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an institutional review board-approved retrospective single-institution study of 915 consecutive outside computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) abdominal imaging studies that had been submitted to our institution between August 1, 2020 and November 30, 2020. The assessed parameters included the quality and accuracy of the report, the technical quality of the imaging compared to that at our institution, the appropriateness of the imaging for staging or restaging, usage of oral and IV contrast, and CT slice thickness. Clinical notes, pathologic findings, and subsequent imaging were used to establish an accurate diagnosis and determine the effect on clinical treatment. Discrepancies between the initial and secondary interpretations were identified independently by a panel of radiologists to assess changes in treatment. The impact of discrepancies on treatment was evaluated based on current treatment guidelines. RESULTS: Of 744 CT (81%) and 171 MR (19%) outside imaging studies, 65% had suboptimal quality compared to the images at our institution, and 31% were inappropriate for oncological care purposes. Only 21% of CT studies had optimal slice thickness of <3 mm. Of 375 (41%) outside reports, 131 (34%) had discrepancies between secondary and initial interpretations. Of the 88 confirmed discrepant studies, 42 patients (48%) had a change in treatment based on the secondary interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging studies from outside institutions have variable image quality and are often inadequate for oncologic imaging. The secondary interpretations by subspecialty-trained radiologists resulted in treatment change.

Inter-observer variability with five computed tomography severity scales for COVID-19 pneumonia assessment.

INTRODUCTION: By the end 2019 there was an outbreak of pneumonia caused by a new coronavirus, a disease that was called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Computed tomography (CT) has played an important role in the diagnosis of COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate inter-observer variability with five scales proposed for measuring the extent of COVID-19 pneumonia on tomography. METHODS: Thirty five initial chest CT scans of patients who attended respiratory triage for suspected COVID-19 pneumonia were analyzed. Three radiologists classified the tomographic images according to the severity scales proposed by Yang (1), Yuan (2), Chun (3), Wang (4) and Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias-Chung-Pan (5). The percentage of agreement between the evaluators for each scale was calculated using the intra-class correlation index. RESULTS: In most patients were five pulmonary lobes compromised (77.1% of the patients). Scales 1, 2, 4 and 5 showed an intra-class correlation > 0.91 (p < 0.0001), with agreement thus being almost perfect. CONCLUSIONS: Scale 4 (proposed by Wang) showed the best inter-observer agreement, with a coefficient of 0.964 (p = 0.001).

INTRODUCCIÓN: A finales de 2019 se presentó un brote de neumonía causada por un nuevo coronavirus, enfermedad a la que se denominó COVID-19. La tomografía computarizada ha desempeñado un papel importante en el diagnóstico de los pacientes con COVID-19. OBJETIVO: Demostrar la variabilidad interobservador con cinco escalas propuestas para la medición de la extensión de la neumonía ocasionada por COVID-19 mediante tomografía. MÉTODOS: Se analizaron 35 tomografías de tórax iniciales de pacientes que asistieron al triaje respiratorio por sospecha de neumonía por COVID-19. Tres radiólogos realizaron la clasificación de las imágenes tomográficas de acuerdo con las escalas de severidad propuestas por Yang (1), Yuan (2), Chun (3), Wang (4) e INER-Chung-Pan (5). Se calculó el porcentaje de concordancia entre los evaluadores para cada escala con el índice de correlación intraclase. RESULTADOS: La mayoría de los pacientes presentó afección de cinco lóbulos pulmonares (77.1 % de los pacientes). Las escalas 1, 2, 4 y 5 mostraron una correlación intraclase > 0.91, con p < 0.0001, por lo que la concordancia fue casi perfecta. CONCLUSIONES: La escala 4 (de Wang) mostró la mejor concordancia interobservador, con un coeficiente de 0.964 (p = 0.001).

Comparison of lung image quality between CT Ark and Brilliance 64 CT during COVID-19.

AIM: This study is to compare the lung image quality between shelter hospital CT (CT Ark) and ordinary CT scans (Brilliance 64) scans. METHODS: The patients who received scans with CT Ark or Brilliance 64 CT were enrolled. Their lung images were divided into two groups according to the scanner. The objective evaluation methods of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were used. The subjective evaluation methods including the evaluation of the fine structure under the lung window and the evaluation of the general structure under the mediastinum window were compared. Kappa method was used to assess the reliability of the subjective evaluation. The subjective evaluation results were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. SNR and CNR were tested using independent sample t tests. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in somatotype of enrolled subjects. The Kappa value between the two observers was between 0.68 and 0.81, indicating good consistency. For subjective evaluation results, the rank sum test P value of fine structure evaluation and general structure evaluation by the two observers was ≥ 0.05. For objective evaluation results, SNR and CNR between the two CT scanners were significantly different (P<0.05). Notably, the absolute values ​​of SNR and CNR of the CT Ark were larger than Brilliance 64 CT scanner. CONCLUSION: CT Ark is fully capable of scanning the lungs of the COVID-19 patients during the epidemic in the shelter hospital.

Reliability and Accuracy of Expert Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice via Telepractice Platforms.

Purpose This study assessed the reliability and accuracy of auditory-perceptual voice evaluations by experienced clinicians via telepractice platforms. Method Voice samples from 20 individuals were recorded after transmission via telepractice platforms. Twenty experienced clinicians (10 speech-language pathologists, 10 laryngologists) evaluated the samples for dysphonia percepts (overall severity, roughness, breathiness, and strain) using a modified Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice. Reliability was calculated as the mean of squared differences between repeated ratings (intrarater agreement), and between individual and group mean ratings (interrater agreement). Repeated measures analyses of variance were constructed to measure effects of transmission condition (e.g., original recording, WebEx, Zoom), dysphonia percept, and their interaction on intrarater agreement, interrater agreement, and average ratings. Significant effects were evaluated with post hoc Tukey's tests. Results There were significant effects of transmission condition, percept, and their interaction on average ratings, and a significant effect of percept on interrater agreement. Post hoc testing revealed statistically, but not clinically, significant differences in average roughness ratings across transmission conditions, and significant differences in interrater agreement for several percepts. Overall severity had the highest agreement and strain had the lowest. Conclusion Telepractice transmission does not substantially reduce reliability or accuracy of auditory-perceptual voice evaluations by experienced clinicians.

Lung Ultrasound for Pleural Line Abnormalities, Confluent B-Lines, and Consolidation: Expert Reproducibility and a Method of Standardization.

OBJECTIVES: Discrete B-lines have clear definitions, but confluent B-lines, consolidations, and pleural line abnormalities are less well defined. We proposed definitions for these and determined their reproducibility using COVID-19 patient images obtained with phased array probes. METHODS: Two raters collaborated to refine definitions, analyzing disagreements on 107 derivation scans from 10 patients. Refined definitions were used by those raters and an independent rater on 1260 validation scans from 105 patients. Reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) or Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: The agreement was excellent between collaborating raters for B-line abnormalities, ICC = 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-0.98) and pleural line to consolidation abnormalities, ICC = 0.90 (95% CI 0.87-0.92). The independent rater's agreement for B-line abnormalities was excellent, ICC = 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.97) and for pleural line to consolidation was good, ICC = 0.88 (95% CI 0.84-0.91). Agreement just on pleural line abnormalities was weak (collaborators, κ = 0.54, 95% CI 0.48-0.60; independent, κ = 0.54, 95% CI 0.49-0.59). CONCLUSION: With proposed definitions or via collaboration, overall agreement on confluent B-lines and pleural line to consolidation abnormalities was robust. Pleural line abnormality agreement itself was persistently weak and caution should be used interpreting pleural line abnormalities with only a phased array probe.

Brescia-COVID Respiratory Severity Scale (BRCSS) and Quick SOFA (qSOFA) score are most useful in showing severity in COVID-19 patients.

In this study, we compare the predictive value of clinical scoring systems that are already in use in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the Brescia-COVID Respiratory Severity Scale (BCRSS), Quick SOFA (qSOFA), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Multilobular infiltration, hypo-Lymphocytosis, Bacterial coinfection, Smoking history, hyper-Tension, and Age (MuLBSTA) and scoring system for reactive hemophagocytic syndrome (HScore), for determining the severity of the disease. Our aim in this study is to determine which scoring system is most useful in determining disease severity and to guide clinicians. We classified the patients into two groups according to the stage of the disease (severe and non-severe) and adopted interim guidance of the World Health Organization. Severe cases were divided into a group of surviving patients and a deceased group according to the prognosis. According to admission values, the BCRSS, qSOFA, SOFA, MuLBSTA, and HScore were evaluated at admission using the worst parameters available in the first 24 h. Of the 417 patients included in our study, 46 (11%) were in the severe group, while 371 (89%) were in the non-severe group. Of these 417 patients, 230 (55.2%) were men. The median (IQR) age of all patients was 44 (25) years. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, BRCSS in the highest tertile (HR 6.1, 95% CI 2.105-17.674, p = 0.001) was determined as an independent predictor of severe disease in cases of COVID-19. In multivariate analyses, qSOFA was also found to be an independent predictor of severe COVID-19 (HR 4.757, 95% CI 1.438-15.730, p = 0.011). The area under the curve (AUC) of the BRCSS, qSOFA, SOFA, MuLBSTA, and HScore was 0.977, 0.961, 0.958, 0.860, and 0.698, respectively. Calculation of the BRCSS and qSOFA at the time of hospital admission can predict critical clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, and their predictive value is superior to that of HScore, MuLBSTA, and SOFA. Our prediction is that early interventions for high-risk patients, with early identification of high-risk group using BRCSS and qSOFA, may improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19.

Comparison of Chest CT Findings of COVID-19, Influenza, and Organizing Pneumonia: A Multireader Study.

BACKGROUND. Previous studies compared CT findings of COVID-19 pneumonia with those of other infections; however, to our knowledge, no studies to date have included noninfectious organizing pneumonia (OP) for comparison. OBJECTIVE. The objectives of this study were to compare chest CT features of COVID-19, influenza, and OP using a multireader design and to assess the performance of radiologists in distinguishing between these conditions. METHODS. This retrospective study included 150 chest CT examinations in 150 patients (mean [± SD] age, 58 ± 16 years) with a diagnosis of COVID-19, influenza, or non-infectious OP (50 randomly selected abnormal CT examinations per diagnosis). Six thoracic radiologists independently assessed CT examinations for 14 individual CT findings and for Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) COVID-19 category and recorded a favored diagnosis. The CT characteristics of the three diagnoses were compared using random-effects models; the diagnostic performance of the readers was assessed. RESULTS. COVID-19 pneumonia was significantly different (p < .05) from influenza pneumonia for seven of 14 chest CT findings, although it was different (p < .05) from OP for four of 14 findings (central or diffuse distribution was seen in 10% and 7% of COVID-19 cases, respectively, vs 20% and 21% of OP cases, respectively; unilateral distribution was seen in 1% of COVID-19 cases vs 7% of OP cases; non-tree-in-bud nodules was seen in 32% of COVID-19 cases vs 53% of OP cases; tree-in-bud nodules were seen in 6% of COVID-19 cases vs 14% of OP cases). A total of 70% of cases of COVID-19, 33% of influenza cases, and 47% of OP cases had typical findings according to RSNA COVID-19 category assessment (p < .001). The mean percentage of correct favored diagnoses compared with actual diagnoses was 44% for COVID-19, 29% for influenza, and 39% for OP. The mean diagnostic accuracy of favored diagnoses was 70% for COVID-19 pneumonia and 68% for both influenza and OP. CONCLUSION. CT findings of COVID-19 substantially overlap with those of influenza and, to a greater extent, those of OP. The diagnostic accuracy of the radiologists was low in a study sample that contained equal proportions of these three types of pneumonia. CLINICAL IMPACT. Recognized challenges in diagnosing COVID-19 by CT are furthered by the strong overlap observed between the appearances of COVID-19 and OP on CT. This challenge may be particularly evident in clinical settings in which there are substantial proportions of patients with potential causes of OP such as ongoing cancer therapy or autoimmune conditions.

Inter-reader agreement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology-American Gastroenterological Association (SAR-AGA) consensus reporting for key phenotypes at MR enterography in adults with Crohn disease: impact of radiologist experience.

PURPOSE: To assess inter-reader agreement of key features from the SAR-AGA recommendations for the interpretation and reporting of MRE in adult patients with CD, focusing on the impact of radiologist experience on inter-reader agreement of CD phenotypes. METHODS: Two experienced and two less-experienced radiologists retrospectively evaluated 99 MRE in CD patients (50 initial MRE, 49 follow-up MRE) performed from 1/1/2019 to 3/20/2020 for the presence of active bowel inflammation (stomach, proximal small bowel, ileum, colon), stricture, probable stricture, penetrating disease, and perianal disease. The MRE protocol did not include dedicated perianal sequences. Inter-rater agreement was determined for each imaging feature using prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa and compared by experience level. RESULTS: All readers had almost-perfect inter-reader agreement (κ > 0.90) for penetrating disease, abscess, and perianal abscess in all 99 CD patients. All readers had strong inter-reader agreement (κ: 0.80-0.90) in 99 CD patients for active ileum inflammation, proximal small bowel inflammation, and stricture. Less-experienced readers had significantly lower inter-reader agreement for active ileum inflammation on initial than follow-up MRE (κ 0.68 versus 0.96, p = 0.018) and for strictures on follow-up than initial MRE (κ 0.76 versus 1.0, p = 0.027). Experienced readers had significantly lower agreement for perianal fistula on follow-up than initial MRE (κ: 0.55 versus 0.92, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: There was strong to almost-perfect inter-reader agreement for key CD phenotypes described in the SAR-AGA consensus recommendations including active ileum and proximal small bowel inflammation, stricture, penetrating disease, abscess, and perianal abscess. Areas of lower inter-reader agreement could be targeted for future education efforts to further standardize CD MRE reporting. Dedicated perianal sequences should be included on follow-up MRE.

Transforming the German ICD-10 (ICD-10-GM) into Injury Severity Score (ISS)-Introducing a new method for automated re-coding.

BACKGROUND: While potentially timesaving, there is no program to automatically transform diagnosis codes of the ICD-10 German modification (ICD-10-GM) into the injury severity score (ISS). OBJECTIVE: To develop a mapping method from ICD-10-GM into ICD-10 clinical modification (ICD-10-CM) to calculate the abbreviated injury scale (AIS) and ISS of each patient using the ICDPIC-R and to compare the manually and automatically calculated scores. METHODS: Between January 2019 and June 2021, the most severe AIS of each body region and the ISS were manually calculated using medical documentation and radiology reports of all major trauma patients of a German level I trauma centre. The ICD-10-GM codes of these patients were exported from the electronic medical data system SAP, and a Java program was written to transform these into ICD-10-CM codes. Afterwards, the ICDPIC-R was used to automatically generate the most severe AIS of each body region and the ISS. The automatically and manually determined ISS and AIS scores were then tested for equivalence. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed that the manually and automatically calculated ISS were significantly equivalent over the entire patient cohort. Further sub-group analysis, however, showed that equivalence could only be demonstrated for patients with an ISS between 16 and 24. Likewise, the highest AIS scores of each body region were not equal in the manually and automatically calculated group. CONCLUSION: Though achieving mapping results highly comparable to previous mapping methods of ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes, it is not unrestrictedly possible to automatically calculate the AIS and ISS using ICD-10-GM codes.

Diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement of CO-RADS: evaluation of classification in radiology practice.

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the use of the COVID-19 reporting and data system (CO-RADS) among radiologists and the diagnostic performance of this system. METHODS: Four radiologists retrospectively evaluated the chest CT examinations of 178 patients. The study included 143 patients with positive reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results and 35 patients whose RT-PCR tests were negative but whose clinical and/or radiological findings were consistent with COVID-19. Fleiss' kappa (κ) values were calculated, and individual observers' scores were compared. To investigate diagnostic efficiency, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated for each interpreter. RESULTS: The interpreters were in full agreement on 574 of 712 (80.6%) evaluations. The common Fleiss' κ value of all the radiologists combined was 0.712 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.692-0.769). A reliable prediction on the basis of RT-PCR and clinical findings indicated the mean area under the curve (AUC) of Fleiss' κ value as 0.89 (95% CI 0.708-0.990). General interpreter agreement was found to range from moderate to good. CONCLUSION: The interpreter agreement for CO-RADS categories 1 and 5 was reasonably good. We conclude that this scoring system will make a valuable contribution to efforts in COVID-19 diagnosis. CO-RADS can also be of significant value for the diagnosis and treatment of the disease in cases with false-negative PCR results.

Diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer agreement with the CO-RADS lexicon for CT chest reporting in COVID-19.

PURPOSE: To measure the diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer agreement with the use of COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) for detection of COVID-19 on CT chest imaging. METHODS: This retrospective study included 164 consecutive patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 in whom a CT chest examination was performed at a single institution between April 2020 and July 2020. Of them, 101 patients was RT-PCR positive for COVID-19. Six readers with varying radiological experience (two each of chest radiologists, general radiologists, and radiologists in training) independently assigned a CO-RADS assessment category for each CT chest study. The Fleiss' K was used to quantify inter-observer agreement. The inter-observer agreement was also assessed based on the duration of onset of symptoms to CT scan. ROC curve analysis was used to determine the diagnostic accuracy of CO-RADS. The area under curve was calculated to determine the reader accuracy for detection of COVID-19 lung involvement with RT-PCR as reference standards. The data sets were plotted in ROC space, and Youden's J statistic was calculated to determine the threshold cut-off CO-RADS category for COVID-19 positivity. RESULTS: There was overall moderate inter-observer agreement between all readers (Fleiss' K 0.54 [95% CI 0.54, 0.54]), with substantial agreement among chest radiologists (Fleiss' K 0.68 [95% CI 0.67, 0.68]), general radiologists (Fleiss' K 0.61 [95% CI 0.61, 0.61]), and moderate agreement among radiologists-in-training (Fleiss' K 0.56 [95% CI 0.56, 0.56]). There was overall moderate inter-observer agreement in early disease (stages 1 and 2), with cumulative Fleiss' K 0.45 [95% CI 0.45, 0.45]). The overall AUC for CO-RADS lexicon scheme to accurately diagnose COVID-19 yielded 0.92 (95% CI 0.91, 0.94) with strong concordance within and between groups, of chests radiologists with AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.88, 0.94), general radiologists with AUC 0.96 (95% CI 0.94, 0.98), and radiologists in training with AUC of 0.90 (95% CI 0.87, 0.94). For detecting COVID-19, ROC curve analysis yielded CO-RADS > 3 as the cut-off threshold with sensitivity 90% (95% CI 0.88, 0.93), and specificity of 87% (95% CI 0.83, 0.91). CONCLUSION: Readers across different levels of experience could accurately identify COVID-19 positive patients using the CO-RADS lexicon with moderate inter-observer agreement and high diagnostic accuracy.

Interobserver Agreement in Semi-Quantitative Scale-Based Interpretation of Chest Radiographs in COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND The chest X-ray is the most available imaging modality enabling semi-quantitative evaluation of pulmonary involvement. Parametric evaluation of chest radiographs in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial for triage and therapeutic management. The CXR Score (Brixia Score), SARI CXR Severity Scoring System, and Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema (RALE), proposed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 infiltration of the lungs, were analyzed for interobserver agreement. MATERIAL AND METHODS This study analyzed 200 chest X-rays from 200 consecutive patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalized at the Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration in Warsaw. Radiographs were evaluated by 2 radiologists according to 3 scales: SARI, RALE, and CXR Score. RESULTS The overall interobserver agreement for SARI ratings was good (kappa=0.755; 95% CI, 0.817-0.694), for RALE scale assessments it was very good (kappa=0.818; 95% CI, 0.844-0.793), and for CXR scale assessments it was very good (kappa=0.844; 95% CI, 0.846-0.841). A moderate correlation was found between the radiological image assessed using each of the scales and the clinical condition of the patient in MEWS (Modified Early Warning Score) (r=0.425-0.591). CONCLUSIONS The analyzed scales are characterized by good or very good interobserver agreement of assessments of the extent of pulmonary infiltration. Since the CXR Score showed the strongest correlation with the clinical condition of the patient as expressed using the MEWS scale, it is the preferred scale for chest radiograph assessment of patients with COVID-19 in the light of data provided.