Extended report
Perceptual variation in grading hand, hip and knee radiographs:
observations based on an Australian Twin Registry study of
osteoarthritis
Nicholas Bellamya, Paul Tesara, Duncan Walkera, Alexander Klestova, Kenneth Muirdenc, Petra Kuhnertb, Kim-Anh Dob, Louise O'Gormanb, Nicholas Martinb
a University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, b Queensland
Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Australia, c Melbourne University, Melbourne, Australia
Correspondence to: Professor N Bellamy, Director of CONROD and Chair of Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Queensland, "C" Floor, Clinical Sciences Building, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Qld 4029, Australia.
Accepted for publication 3 August 1999
OBJECTIVE
The
radiographic diagnosis of osteoarthritis (OA) in the peripheral
skeleton is dependent on the skilled examination of several morphological characteristics of the condition as visualised on plain
radiographs. However, the process is perceptual and generally enhanced
by comparison against photographic standards. This study assessed the
intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of radiologists experienced in
reporting hand, hip and knee films derived from a community-based
sample when using the photographic atlas recently developed by Burnett
et al.
METHODS
This study was
part of a multifaceted diagnostics protocol, evaluating methodological
issues, in the conduct of genetic research in osteoarthritis. From a
cohort of 118 twin pairs, registered with the Australian Twins Registry
(ATR), standard clinical examinations were performed on 74 complete and
11 incomplete pairs of twins over age 50 years, followed by standard AP
hand, AP pelvis and AP standing radiographs of the knees. The pairs
were selected both to represent twin pairs who had previously self
reported a diagnosis of OA, as well as those who had not. Radiologists read the films blind to the original self reported diagnosis and without reference to their pairing. The films were read by comparison against photographic standards and were scored according to specific features. All films were read independently by two consultant radiologists blind to one another's assessments, and selected films
were thereafter assigned for rereading. Inter-rater and intra-rater
agreement were different for different features, different anatomic
areas, and, for the former, were different for the two radiologists.
RESULTS
Inter-rater
agreement was different for different anatomic areas, different
radiographic features, and the two radiologists. Intra-rater agreement
for the presence or absence of OA was as follows: actual observed
agreement = 0.79 to 0.97 and 0.83 to 0.98; adjusted
statistic = 0.58 to 0.94 and 0.67 to 0.96; inter-rater agreement was as follows:
actual observed agreement = 0.77 to 0.97; adjusted
statistic = 0.54 to 0.94. Agreement was generally high in most of the principal target
joints for OA: DIP, PIP, 1st CMC, hip and knee.
CONCLUSIONS
Although
assessor agreement was not perfect, it is concluded that for genetic
epidemiology purposes, while duplicate assessments may be advantageous,
it is possible for radiographs to be examined accurately by a single
experienced assessor. However, for less experienced assessors
independent examinations should be made by at least two assessors and
either a consensus reached on disparate examinations or an algorithm
developed to adjudicate any discrepancies.
© 1999 by Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Nilsdotter, A-K, Aurell, Y, Siosteen, A-K, Lohmander, L S, Roos, H P
(2001). Radiographic stage of osteoarthritis or sex of the patient does not predict one year outcome after total hip arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis
60: 228-232
[Abstract] [Full Text]
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
