Inter-rater reliability of a classification systems for distal radius fractures using radiology text and x-rays: what really matters?

PURPOSE: This study used different metrics to assess the reliability of radiology text and images in Distal Radial Fractures (DRF) classifications using classifiers with varying levels of experience.

METHODS

A random sample of 534 patients (16 + years) admitted to two major trauma centres for > 24 h for DRF management with 1,269 radiology images and radiology text reports were reviewed. Eight classifiers, with varying levels of experience, were randomly assigned patients, with overlap, to classify four different DRF classifications, nine radiological features and one treatment type: (two interns (802 text/images), three registrars (1,079 text/images), three orthopaedic trauma specialists (740 text/images)). The agreement measures utilised were: Percentage agreement (PA), Brennan/ Prediger coefficient, Cohen/Conger Kappa, Fleiss kappa, Gwet's AC, Krippendorff's alpha coefficient; all with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

For DRF classifications, the ulnar fracture (81%, 77%-86%) then AO Level 1 (67%, 60%-74%) had the highest PA; AO Level 3 had the lowest (29%, 23%-34%). For radiological features: highest PA was the presence/absence of tear drop/volar rim fragment (97%, 96%-98%) and severe dorsal comminution (97%, 96%-98%); lowest was ulnar variance (70%, 57%-83%). Treatment had high PA (96%, 87%-100%). Differences across classifier experience were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Even with descriptive texts from the radiology reports and x-ray images, DRF classification is complex and classifier experience not affecting classification. Generally, above fair agreement and interrater reliability was achieved, but the type and complexity of the classification task and the choice of agreement coefficient were important considerations in the reporting of agreement and reliability of the data.