McArdle Patrick F, Kittner Steven J, Ay Hakan, Brown Robert D, Meschia James F, Rundek Tatjana, Wassertheil-Smoller Sylvia, Woo Daniel, Andsberg Gunnar, Biffi Alessandro, Brenner David A, Cole John W, Corriveau Roderick, de Bakker Paul I W, Delavaran Hossein, Dichgans Martin, Grewal Raji P, Gwinn Katrina, Huq Mohammed, Jern Christina, Jimenez-Conde Jordi, Jood Katarina, Kaplan Robert C, Katschnig Petra, Katsnelson Michael, Labovitz Daniel L, Lemmens Robin, Li Linxin, Lindgren Arne, Markus Hugh S, Peddareddygari Leema R, Pedersén Annie, Pera Joanna, Redfors Petra, Roquer Jaume, Rosand Jonathan, Rost Natalia S, Rothwell Peter M, Sacco Ralph L, Sharma Pankaj, Slowik Agnieszka, Sudlow Cathie, Thijs Vincent, Tiedt Steffen, Valenti Raffaella, Worrall Bradford B
Neurology. 2014 Oct 28;83(18):1653-60. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000942. Epub 2014 Sep 26.
The objective of this study was to assess the level of agreement between stroke subtype classifications made using the Trial of Org 10172 Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) and Causative Classification of Stroke (CCS) systems.
Study subjects included 13,596 adult men and women accrued from 20 US and European genetic research centers participating in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Stroke Genetics Network (SiGN). All cases had independently classified TOAST and CCS stroke subtypes. Kappa statistics were calculated for the 5 major ischemic stroke subtypes common to both systems.
The overall agreement between TOAST and CCS was moderate (agreement rate, 70%; κ = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.60). Agreement varied widely across study sites, ranging from 28% to 90%. Agreement on specific subtypes was highest for large-artery atherosclerosis (κ = 0.71, 95% CI 0.69-0.73) and lowest for small-artery occlusion (κ = 0.56, 95% CI 0.54-0.58).
Agreement between TOAST and CCS diagnoses was moderate. Caution is warranted when comparing or combining results based on the 2 systems. Replication of study results, for example, genome-wide association studies, should utilize phenotypes determined by the same classification system, ideally applied in the same manner.
本研究的目的是评估使用奥扎格雷急性卒中治疗试验(TOAST)和卒中病因分类(CCS)系统进行的卒中亚型分类之间的一致性水平。
研究对象包括从参与美国国立神经疾病与卒中研究所(NINDS)卒中遗传学网络(SiGN)的20个美国和欧洲基因研究中心招募的13596名成年男女。所有病例的TOAST和CCS卒中亚型均已独立分类。对两个系统共有的5种主要缺血性卒中亚型计算Kappa统计量。
TOAST和CCS之间的总体一致性为中等(一致率为70%;κ=0.59,95%置信区间[CI]0.58 - 0.60)。各研究地点的一致性差异很大,范围从28%到90%。大动脉粥样硬化特定亚型的一致性最高(κ=0.71,95%CI 0.69 - 0.73),小动脉闭塞的一致性最低(κ=0.56,95%CI 0.54 - 0.58)。
TOAST和CCS诊断之间的一致性为中等。在比较或合并基于这两个系统的结果时需谨慎。例如,全基因组关联研究等研究结果的重复,应使用由相同分类系统确定的表型,理想情况下应以相同方式应用。