| Autor: |
Enrico Boero, Luna Gargani, Annia Schreiber, Serena Rovida, Giampaolo Martinelli, Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore, Felice Urso, Anna Camporesi, Annarita Tullio, Fiorella Anna Lombardi, Gianmaria Cammarota, Daniele Guerino Biasucci, Elena Giovanna Bignami, Cristian Deana, Giovanni Volpicelli, Sergio Livigni, Luigi Vetrugno |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2024 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care, Vol 4, Iss 1, Pp 1-9 (2024) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
2731-3786 |
| DOI: |
10.1186/s44158-024-00187-x |
| Popis: |
Abstract Background Lung ultrasonography (LUS) is a non-invasive imaging method used to diagnose and monitor conditions such as pulmonary edema, pneumonia, and pneumothorax. It is precious where other imaging techniques like CT scan or chest X-rays are of limited access, especially in low- and middle-income countries with reduced resources. Furthermore, LUS reduces radiation exposure and its related blood cancer adverse events, which is particularly relevant in children and young subjects. The score obtained with LUS allows semi-quantification of regional loss of aeration, and it can provide a valuable and reliable assessment of the severity of most respiratory diseases. However, inter-observer reliability of the score has never been systematically assessed. This study aims to assess experienced LUS operators’ agreement on a sample of video clips showing predefined findings. Methods Twenty-five anonymized video clips comprehensively depicting the different values of LUS score were shown to renowned LUS experts blinded to patients’ clinical data and the study’s aims using an online form. Clips were acquired from five different ultrasound machines. Fleiss-Cohen weighted kappa was used to evaluate experts’ agreement. Results Over a period of 3 months, 20 experienced operators completed the assessment. Most worked in the ICU (10), ED (6), HDU (2), cardiology ward (1), or obstetric/gynecology department (1). The proportional LUS score mean was 15.3 (SD 1.6). Inter-rater agreement varied: 6 clips had full agreement, 3 had 19 out of 20 raters agreeing, and 3 had 18 agreeing, while the remaining 13 had 17 or fewer people agreeing on the assigned score. Scores 0 and score 3 were more reproducible than scores 1 and 2. Fleiss’ Kappa for overall answers was 0.87 (95% CI 0.815–0.931, p |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink