Health Services Research Centre, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway.
Intensive Care Med. 2010 May;36(5):850-3. doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-1772-1. Epub 2010 Feb 4.
In this study we evaluated and compared the interrater reliability of SAPS II and SAPS 3 in order to measure the consistency of performance among different raters.
Ten junior doctors working at two general ICUs were trained in the use of SAPS II and SAPS 3 using a 2.5-h training program. After training they scored 24 cases in both systems. Scores were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) statistics. In order to identify variables with low reliability, subscores were analyzed using the ICC, and single-variables were compared to a template score using weighted kappa statistics.
The ICC (95% CI) of the scores was 0.84 (0.74, 0.91) in SAPS II and 0.80 (0.68, 0.89) in SAPS 3, which is considered adequate for both systems. Mean mortality predictions among the raters had a range of 0.12 in SAPS II and 0.19 in SAPS 3. Administrative data including age had high reliability, whereas variables based on diagnostic information had only moderate reliability. Laboratory data had consistently higher reliability than variables based on the interpretation of charts.
Both SAPS II and SAPS 3 have adequate interrater reliability, but the standardized mortality ratios are still likely to be influenced by the rater's scoring practice.
本研究旨在评估和比较 SAPS II 和 SAPS 3 的组内信度,以衡量不同评分者之间的表现一致性。
10 名在两家综合 ICU 工作的初级医生接受了 2.5 小时的 SAPS II 和 SAPS 3 使用培训。培训后,他们对两个系统中的 24 个病例进行了评分。使用组内相关系数(ICC)统计分析评分。为了识别可靠性较低的变量,使用 ICC 分析亚评分,并使用加权kappa 统计比较单变量与模板评分。
SAPS II 的 ICC(95%CI)为 0.84(0.74,0.91),SAPS 3 的 ICC 为 0.80(0.68,0.89),这两个系统的 ICC 均被认为是足够的。评分者之间的平均死亡率预测范围在 SAPS II 中为 0.12,在 SAPS 3 中为 0.19。包括年龄在内的行政数据具有较高的可靠性,而基于诊断信息的变量只有中等可靠性。实验室数据的可靠性始终高于基于图表解释的变量。
SAPS II 和 SAPS 3 均具有足够的组内信度,但标准化死亡率比仍可能受到评分者评分实践的影响。