Suppr超能文献

子宫内膜日期判定的准确性及观察者间的可重复性。

The accuracy and interobserver reproducibility of endometrial dating.

作者信息

Duggan M A, Brashert P, Ostor A, Scurry J, Billson V, Kneafsey P, Difrancesco L

机构信息

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

出版信息

Pathology. 2001 Aug;33(3):292-7.

Abstract

Although controversial, diagnosis of luteal phase defect (LPD) includes the morphological assessment of endometrial development. This study was conducted to determine if refresher training in the histological criteria could improve the accuracy and interobserver reproducibility of endometrial dating. Seventy-eight endometrial biopsies were dated by a reference panel of two pathologists and then reviewed twice by a study panel of four pathologists. In the first review, usual practice was applied. Prior to the second review, they studied a standard document of histological criteria. Samples were dated as proliferative, secretory (post-ovulatory day, POD), menstrual, and undatable. Accuracy levels based on the reference dating and agreement levels using kappa values were calculated per review and compared. The kappa for overall dating was 0.683 in the first review and 0.696 in the second. The respective first and second review kappa values were 0.736 and 0.771 for proliferative, and 0.794 and 0.764 for secretory. Amongst those dated as secretory in the first and second reviews, respectively, 31 and 28% were assigned the same POD by any two panellists, 68 and 63% were dated to within 1 day, and 77 and 71% were dated to within 2 days. Accuracy levels per panellist for overall dating were very high in both reviews but were low for individual PODs. Accuracy and interobserver reproducibility were unaffected by refresher training, suggesting the limits of histological dating have been reached.

摘要

尽管存在争议,但黄体期缺陷(LPD)的诊断包括对子宫内膜发育的形态学评估。本研究旨在确定组织学标准的复习培训是否能提高子宫内膜分期的准确性和观察者间的可重复性。78份子宫内膜活检标本由两名病理学家组成的参考小组进行分期,然后由四名病理学家组成的研究小组进行两次复查。在第一次复查中,采用常规方法。在第二次复查前,他们研究了一份组织学标准的标准文件。样本被分为增殖期、分泌期(排卵后天数,POD)、月经期和无法分期。根据参考分期计算每次复查的准确率水平,并使用kappa值计算一致性水平,然后进行比较。第一次复查时总体分期的kappa值为0.683,第二次复查时为0.696。增殖期第一次和第二次复查的kappa值分别为0.736和0.771,分泌期分别为0.794和0.764。在第一次和第二次复查中被判定为分泌期的样本中,分别有31%和28%被任意两名小组成员判定为相同的POD,68%和63%的样本分期相差在1天以内,77%和71%的样本分期相差在2天以内。两次复查中每个小组成员的总体分期准确率都很高,但个别POD的准确率较低。复习培训并未影响准确性和观察者间的可重复性,这表明组织学分期的局限性已经达到。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验