Saunders M B, Gulabivala K, Holt R, Kahan R S
Eastman Dental Institute and Hospital for Oral Health Care Sciences, University of London, London, UK.
Int Endod J. 2000 May;33(3):272-8. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00304.x.
The aim of this preliminary study was to test the reliability of radiographic evaluation of features of endodontic interest using a newly devised data collection system.
Twelve endodontic MSc postgraduate students and one specialist endodontist examined sample radiographs derived from a random selection of 42 patients seen previously on an Endodontic New Patient Clinic (EDI). Each student examined a random selection of 8-9 roots on periapical radiographs of single- and multirooted teeth, with and without previous root canal therapy and 3-4 dental panoramic tomograms (DPTs). A total of 100 roots were examined. A proforma was used to record observations on 67 radiographic features using predefined criteria. Intra-observer agreement was tested by asking the students to re-examine the radiographs. The principle investigator and the specialist endodontist examined the same radiographs and devised a Gold Standard using the same criteria. This was compared with the student assessments to determine inter-observer variation. The postgraduates then attended a revision session on the use of the form. Each student subsequently examined 8-9 different roots from the pool of radiographs. A further assessment of inter-observer variation was made by comparing these observations with the Gold Standard.
Of the 67 radiographic features, only 25 had sufficient response to allow statistical analysis. Kappa values for intra- and inter-observer variation were estimated. These varied depending on the particular radiographic feature being assessed. Fifteen out of 25 intra-observer recordings showed 'good' or 'very good' Kappa agreement, but only three out of 25 inter-observer observations achieved 'good' or 'very good' values. Inter-observer variation was improved following the revision session with 16 out of 25 observations achieving 'good' or 'very good' Kappa agreement.
Modification to the proforma, the criteria used, and training for radiographic assessment were considered necessary to improve the accuracy and reproducibility of the observations entered.
