Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

• Published in: Korean Journal of Radiology Vol. 18; no. 6; pp. 888 - 897
• Main Authors: Park, Ji Eun, Han, Kyunghwa, Sung, Yu Sub, Chung, Mi Sun, Koo, Hyun Jung, Yoon, Hee Mang, Choi, Young Jun, Lee, Seung Soo, Kim, Kyung Won, Shin, Youngbin, An, Suah, Cho, Hyo-Min, Park, Seong Ho
• Format: Journal Article Book Review
• Language: English
• Published: Korea (South) The Korean Society of Radiology 01.11.2017; 대한영상의학회
• Subjects: Accuracy; Agreements; Biomarkers; Diagnostic tests; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Experiment, Engineering, and Physics; Humans; Peer Review, Research; Radiology; Reproducibility; Reproducibility of Results; Statistical methods; User-Computer Interface; 방사선과학; Statistical method; Agreement; Repeatability; Statistical analysis; Software program; Repeatability coefficient; Reproducibility; Reliability
• ISSN: 1229-6929; 2005-8330
• DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.888

To evaluate the frequency and adequacy of statistical analyses in a general radiology journal when reporting a reliability analysis for a diagnostic test. Sixty-three studies of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and 36 studies reporting reliability analyses published in the between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Studies were judged using the methodological guidelines of the Radiological Society of North America-Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (RSNA-QIBA), and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiative. DTA studies were evaluated by nine editorial board members of the journal. Reliability studies were evaluated by study reviewers experienced with reliability analysis. Thirty-one (49.2%) of the 63 DTA studies did not include a reliability analysis when deemed necessary. Among the 36 reliability studies, proper statistical methods were used in all (5/5) studies dealing with dichotomous/nominal data, 46.7% (7/15) of studies dealing with ordinal data, and 95.2% (20/21) of studies dealing with continuous data. Statistical methods were described in sufficient detail regarding weighted kappa in 28.6% (2/7) of studies and regarding the model and assumptions of intraclass correlation coefficient in 35.3% (6/17) and 29.4% (5/17) of studies, respectively. Reliability parameters were used as if they were agreement parameters in 23.1% (3/13) of studies. Reproducibility and repeatability were used incorrectly in 20% (3/15) of studies. Greater attention to the importance of reporting reliability, thorough description of the related statistical methods, efforts not to neglect agreement parameters, and better use of relevant terminology is necessary.