Fernández-Coll Anna Paola, Garcés-Elías María Claudia, Beltrán Jorge A, León-Manco Roberto A, Mas-López Janett
Facultad de Estomatología, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima 150135, Peru.
Methods Protoc. 2024 Oct 16;7(5):83. doi: 10.3390/mps7050083.
The process of examiner calibration is an essential step in all epidemiological research, as it aims to ensure uniform interpretation, understanding, and application of the instrument to be used. This ensures that the data collected will be valid and reliable. This study aimed to determine the differences in concordance in dental caries calibration across three dental specialties. The population consisted of 45 dentists, divided into three groups: 15 general dentists working in the public sector, 15 dentists specializing in Dental Public Health, and 15 dentists specializing in Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry. The calibration process was carried out in three stages: theory, calibration using photographs, and calibration on natural teeth, performed by the gold standard. In the first validity process, a statistical difference was only found between the Kappa values of the inter-examiner calibration process using photographs. For the evaluation of teeth, in the second validity process, 33.33% (n = 15) of the participants achieved "almost perfect agreement." Finally, only 75.56% (n = 34) of the examiners were considered for the reliability report; of this group, 52.94% (n = 18) were in "almost perfect agreement," and 35.29% (n = 12) were in "substantial agreement." The validity and reliability of the dental caries experience calibration process did not present significant statistical differences between general dentists in the public sector, dentists specializing in Dental Public Health, and dentists specializing in Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry.
检查者校准过程是所有流行病学研究中的关键步骤，因为其目的是确保对所用工具的统一解释、理解和应用。这能确保所收集的数据有效且可靠。本研究旨在确定三个牙科专业在龋齿校准方面的一致性差异。研究对象包括45名牙医，分为三组：15名在公共部门工作的普通牙医、15名牙科公共卫生专科牙医以及15名修复与美学牙科专科牙医。校准过程分三个阶段进行：理论阶段、使用照片进行校准以及由金标准对天然牙进行校准。在第一个有效性评估过程中，仅在使用照片进行的检查者间校准过程的Kappa值之间发现了统计学差异。对于牙齿评估，在第二个有效性评估过程中，33.33%（n = 15）的参与者达成了“几乎完全一致”。最后，仅75.56%（n = 34）的检查者被纳入可靠性报告；在该组中，52.94%（n = 18）达成了“几乎完全一致”，35.29%（n = 12）达成了“实质性一致”。在公共部门的普通牙医、牙科公共卫生专科牙医以及修复与美学牙科专科牙医之间，龋齿经验校准过程的有效性和可靠性未呈现出显著的统计学差异。
