Schwartz M M, Lan S P, Bernstein J, Hill G S, Holley K, Lewis E J
Department of Pathology, Rush-Presbyterian-St Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612.
Am J Kidney Dis. 1993 Apr;21(4):374-7. doi: 10.1016/s0272-6386(12)80263-0.
Histological indices of renal pathology in lupus nephritis have been proposed as prognostic signs and as a method to quantitate therapeutic response. We tested the reproducibility of the activity (AI) and chronicity indices (CI) in the renal biopsies from 83 patients with lupus nephritis, enrolled in a controlled therapeutic trial. The AI/CI were calculated separately by four renal pathologists using published criteria. Pair-wise Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to examine the relationship among the scores of the four raters, and their degree of reproducibility was evaluated using the coefficient of reliability. The mean CI scores ranged from 2.84 to 4.61, and the mean AI ranged from 9.64 to 12.89. The correlation among the different pathologist's scores ranged from 0.44 to 0.63 for the AI and 0.60 to 0.76 for the CI. One pathologist (M.M.S.) rated the biopsies twice, and the correlation between the two ratings was 0.58 for the AI and 0.74 for the CI. Thus, the AI and CI calculated by different pathologists and the temporally separate observations of a single observer were only moderately correlated. The reproducibility of a single rating was low, showing a reliability coefficient of 0.48 for the AI and 0.57 for the CI. The low reliability coefficient suggests that the variability among pathologists was the result of interpretative differences. We conclude that the AI/CI are too subjective to be used as therapeutic guides or as prognosticators.
狼疮性肾炎的肾脏病理组织学指标已被提议作为预后指标以及量化治疗反应的方法。我们对83例参与对照治疗试验的狼疮性肾炎患者肾活检中的活动指数(AI)和慢性指数(CI)的可重复性进行了测试。四位肾脏病理学家分别根据已发表的标准计算AI/CI。采用成对Spearman等级相关系数来检验四位评估者评分之间的关系,并使用可靠性系数评估其可重复性程度。CI评分均值在2.84至4.61之间,AI均值在9.64至12.89之间。不同病理学家对AI的评分相关性在0.44至0.63之间,对CI的评分相关性在0.60至0.76之间。一位病理学家(M.M.S.)对活检标本进行了两次评分,两次评分对AI的相关性为0.58,对CI的相关性为0.74。因此,不同病理学家计算的AI和CI以及同一观察者在不同时间的观察结果之间仅存在中度相关性。单次评分的可重复性较低,AI的可靠性系数为0.48,CI的可靠性系数为0.57。低可靠性系数表明病理学家之间的差异是解释性差异的结果。我们得出结论,AI/CI过于主观,不能用作治疗指南或预后指标。