Suppr超能文献

2020 年应激超声心动图中区域性壁运动分析的质量控制

Quality control of regional wall motion analysis in stress Echo 2020.

机构信息

CNR, Institute of Clinical Physiology, Biomedicine Department, Pisa, Italy; Cardiology Division, Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Benevento, Italy.

CNR, Institute of Clinical Physiology, Biomedicine Department, Pisa, Italy.

出版信息

Int J Cardiol. 2017 Dec 15;249:479-485. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.09.172. Epub 2017 Oct 1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The trial "Stress Echo (SE) 2020" evaluates novel applications of SE beyond coronary artery disease. The aim of the study was control quality and harmonize reading criteria.

METHODS

One reader from 78 centers of the SE 2020 network asked for credentials to read a set of 20 SE video-clips selected by the core lab. All aspiring centers met the pre-requisite of high-volume and the years of experience in SE ranged from 5 to 31years (mean value 18years). The diagnostic gold standard was a reading by the core lab. The a priori determined pass threshold was 18/20 (≥90%).

RESULTS

Of the initial 78 who started, 57 completed the first attempt: individual readers' score on first attempt ranged from 07/20 to 20/20 (accuracy from 35% to 100%, mean 78.7±13%) and 44 readers passed it. There was a very poor correlation between years of experience and the reader's score on first attempt (r=-0.161, p=0.231). Of the 13 readers who failed the first attempt, 12 took it again after the web-based session and their accuracy improved (74% vs. 96%, p<0.001). The kappa inter-observer agreement before and after web-based training was 0.59 on first attempt and rose to 0.91 on the last attempt.

CONCLUSIONS

In SE reading, the volume of activity or years of experience is not synonymous with diagnostic quality. Qualitative analysis and operator-dependence can become a limiting weakness in clinical practice, in the absence of strict pathways of learning, credentialing and audit.

摘要

背景

试验“Stress Echo (SE) 2020”评估了 SE 在冠状动脉疾病以外的新应用。该研究的目的是控制质量并协调阅读标准。

方法

SE 2020 网络的 78 个中心之一的一名读者要求获得阅读核心实验室选择的 20 个 SE 视频剪辑集的证书。所有有志于参加的中心都满足高容量的先决条件,SE 的经验年限从 5 年到 31 年不等(平均值为 18 年)。诊断金标准是由核心实验室进行的阅读。预先确定的及格阈值为 18/20(≥90%)。

结果

最初有 78 人开始,其中 57 人首次尝试完成:首次尝试时个别读者的分数范围为 07/20 至 20/20(准确率从 35%到 100%,平均值为 78.7±13%),有 44 名读者通过。经验年限与读者首次尝试的得分之间相关性很差(r=-0.161,p=0.231)。在首次尝试失败的 13 名读者中,有 12 名在网络会议后再次尝试,他们的准确性提高(74%对 96%,p<0.001)。网络培训前后观察者间的kappa 一致性在首次尝试时为 0.59,在最后一次尝试时上升至 0.91。

结论

在 SE 阅读中,活动量或经验年限与诊断质量并不等同。在缺乏严格的学习、认证和审核途径的情况下,定性分析和操作员依赖性可能成为临床实践中的一个限制弱点。

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