↓ Skip to main content

Development of a Consensus Document to Improve Multireader Concordance and Accuracy of Aortic Regurgitation Severity Grading by Echocardiography Versus Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Cardiology, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development of a Consensus Document to Improve Multireader Concordance and Accuracy of Aortic Regurgitation Severity Grading by Echocardiography Versus Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published in
American Journal of Cardiology, May 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.04.052
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arun Dahiya, Michael Bolen, Richard A. Grimm, L. Leonardo Rodriguez, James D. Thomas, Thomas H. Marwick, AR Concordance Investigators

Abstract

Current guidelines recommend a multiparametric echocardiographic assessment of aortic regurgitation (AR). However, the absence of a hierarchical weighting of discordant parameters could cause interobserver variability. In the present study, we sought to define and improve the interobserver variability of AR assessment. Seventeen level 3 readers graded 20 randomly selected patients with AR. The readers also provided a usefulness score for each parameter, depending on its influence on their decision of the AR severity grade. A consensus strategy was subsequently formulated and validated against cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in a separate group of 80 patients. The readers were updated with the consensus document and recalibrated using the same cases. Agreement was statistically assessed using Randolph's free-marginal multirater kappa. At baseline, no uniform approach was used to combine the individual parameters, contributing to the interobserver variability (overall kappa 0.5). A consensus strategy to categorize AR severity was developed in which the left ventricular volume took precedence over the other parameters and was used to differentiate chronic severe AR from less severe categories. Recalibration of the readers using this consensus strategy improved concordance (kappa increased to 0.7). The new strategy also improved the accuracy relative to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, as evidenced by full agreement on severe AR between the consensus document-based grading and AR severity defined by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the separate validation group of 80 patients. In conclusion, grading of chronic AR using a multiparametric approach has suboptimal consistency between readers and a left ventricular volume-based consensus document improved concordance and accuracy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Belgium 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 29 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 56%
Psychology 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 June 2012.
All research outputs
#23,011,330
of 25,655,374 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Cardiology
#9,515
of 10,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,752
of 179,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Cardiology
#83
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,655,374 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 179,227 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.