Fancourt Nicholas, Deloria Knoll Maria, Barger-Kamate Breanna, de Campo John, de Campo Margaret, Diallo Mahamadou, Ebruke Bernard E, Feikin Daniel R, Gleeson Fergus, Gong Wenfeng, Hammitt Laura L, Izadnegahdar Rasa, Kruatrachue Anchalee, Madhi Shabir A, Manduku Veronica, Matin Fariha Bushra, Mahomed Nasreen, Moore David P, Mwenechanya Musaku, Nahar Kamrun, Oluwalana Claire, Ominde Micah Silaba, Prosperi Christine, Sande Joyce, Suntarattiwong Piyarat, O'Brien Katherine L
Department of International Health, International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, and.
Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jun 15;64(suppl_3):S253-S261. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix082.
BACKGROUND.: Chest radiographs (CXRs) are a valuable diagnostic tool in epidemiologic studies of pneumonia. The World Health Organization (WHO) methodology for the interpretation of pediatric CXRs has not been evaluated beyond its intended application as an endpoint measure for bacterial vaccine trials.
METHODS.: The Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health (PERCH) study enrolled children aged 1-59 months hospitalized with WHO-defined severe and very severe pneumonia from 7 low- and middle-income countries. An interpretation process categorized each CXR into 1 of 5 conclusions: consolidation, other infiltrate, both consolidation and other infiltrate, normal, or uninterpretable. Two members of a 14-person reading panel, who had undertaken training and standardization in CXR interpretation, interpreted each CXR. Two members of an arbitration panel provided additional independent reviews of CXRs with discordant interpretations at the primary reading, blinded to previous reports. Further discordance was resolved with consensus discussion.
RESULTS.: A total of 4172 CXRs were obtained from 4232 cases. Observed agreement for detecting consolidation (with or without other infiltrate) between primary readers was 78% (κ = 0.50) and between arbitrators was 84% (κ = 0.61); agreement for primary readers and arbitrators across 5 conclusion categories was 43.5% (κ = 0.25) and 48.5% (κ = 0.32), respectively. Disagreement was most frequent between conclusions of other infiltrate and normal for both the reading panel and the arbitration panel (32% and 30% of discordant CXRs, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS.: Agreement was similar to that of previous evaluations using the WHO methodology for detecting consolidation, but poor for other infiltrates despite attempts at a rigorous standardization process.
胸部X光片(CXR)是肺炎流行病学研究中的一种重要诊断工具。世界卫生组织(WHO)对儿科胸部X光片的解读方法,除了作为细菌疫苗试验的终点指标这一预期应用外,尚未得到评估。
儿童健康肺炎病因研究(PERCH)纳入了来自7个低收入和中等收入国家的1 - 59个月因WHO定义的重度和极重度肺炎住院的儿童。一个解读流程将每张胸部X光片归类为5种结论之一:实变、其他浸润、实变和其他浸润并存、正常或无法解读。一个由14人组成的阅片小组中的两名成员,他们接受过胸部X光片解读的培训和标准化,对每张胸部X光片进行解读。一个仲裁小组的两名成员对初次阅片时有不一致解读的胸部X光片进行额外的独立审查,且对先前的报告不知情。进一步的不一致通过共识讨论得以解决。
共从4232例病例中获得了4172张胸部X光片。初次阅片者之间检测实变(无论有无其他浸润)的观察一致性为78%(κ = 0.50),仲裁者之间为84%(κ = 0.61);初次阅片者和仲裁者在5种结论类别上的一致性分别为43.5%(κ = 0.25)和48.5%(κ = 0.32)。对于阅片小组和仲裁小组而言,其他浸润和正常结论之间的分歧最为常见(分别占不一致胸部X光片的32%和30%)。
在使用WHO方法检测实变方面,一致性与先前评估相似,但尽管进行了严格的标准化流程,对于其他浸润情况的一致性较差。