Hospital pediatrics · 2025
Interrater Reliability of Pediatric Respiratory Auscultation Findings.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ramgopal Sriram, Saper Jennifer K, Rudloff James R, Geanacopoulos Alexandra T, Rivera-Sepulveda Andrea, Timm Theresa, Liu Deborah R, Soung Jane K, Liu Lichuan, Florin Todd A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interrater reliability of pediatric auscultatory findings as assessed by pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter survey of physicians in 6 academic PEM divisions in the United States. Respondents listened to 15 audio clips of pediatric auscultatory sounds and classified them as normal or as having 1 or more adventitious sounds. We calculated Fleiss' κ to evaluate interrater reliability of auscultatory findings among respondents. We stratified results based on study site and years of experience.
RESULTS: Surveys were distributed to 128 physicians, with responses from 106 (83% response rate). Only the identification of normal breath sounds (κ = 0.46, 95% CI, 0.45-0.47) met threshold criteria for reliability. Other findings did not reach this threshold, including stridor (κ = 0.32, 95% CI, 0.31-0.33), wheeze (κ = 0.25, 95% CI, 0.24-0.25), crackles (κ = 0.15, 95% CI, 0.15-0.16), and rhonchi (κ = 0.15, 95% CI, 0.14-0.15). Some sites demonstrated greater intrarater reliability compared with others. Stratified by years of experience, only interpretation of normal breath sounds and stridor among physicians with 0 to 4 years of experience and the interpretation of normal breath sounds among physicians with 15 or more years of experience reached acceptable reliability. Compared with a reference standard, highest accuracy was noted in the interpretation of normal breath sounds (Accuracy = 0.85, 95% CI, 0.83-0.87).
CONCLUSION: We found poor interrater reliability in the interpretation of most pediatric breath sounds, except in the identification of normal breath sounds. These findings support a need for more robust approaches toward the accurate identification of respiratory pathology in children.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter survey of physicians in 6 academic PEM divisions in the United States. Respondents listened to 15 audio clips of pediatric auscultatory sounds and classified them as normal or as having 1 or more adventitious sounds. We calculated Fleiss' κ to evaluate interrater reliability of auscultatory findings among respondents. We stratified results based on study site and years of experience.
RESULTS: Surveys were distributed to 128 physicians, with responses from 106 (83% response rate). Only the identification of normal breath sounds (κ = 0.46, 95% CI, 0.45-0.47) met threshold criteria for reliability. Other findings did not reach this threshold, including stridor (κ = 0.32, 95% CI, 0.31-0.33), wheeze (κ = 0.25, 95% CI, 0.24-0.25), crackles (κ = 0.15, 95% CI, 0.15-0.16), and rhonchi (κ = 0.15, 95% CI, 0.14-0.15). Some sites demonstrated greater intrarater reliability compared with others. Stratified by years of experience, only interpretation of normal breath sounds and stridor among physicians with 0 to 4 years of experience and the interpretation of normal breath sounds among physicians with 15 or more years of experience reached acceptable reliability. Compared with a reference standard, highest accuracy was noted in the interpretation of normal breath sounds (Accuracy = 0.85, 95% CI, 0.83-0.87).
CONCLUSION: We found poor interrater reliability in the interpretation of most pediatric breath sounds, except in the identification of normal breath sounds. These findings support a need for more robust approaches toward the accurate identification of respiratory pathology in children.