Improvement of interobserver reproducibility of adhesion scoring systems

Michael Peter Diamond, K. Bachus, E. Bieber, K. Bradshaw, D. Gallup, G. Grunert, A. Mok, R. Morris, R. Perez, E. Radwanska, K. Silverberg, M. Steinkampf, E. Halpern, L. Fleming, E. Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

62 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the interobserver reproducibility of two adhesion scoring methods, a more comprehensive adhesion scoring method and the American Fertility Society (AFS) adhesion scoring method. Design: Eleven endoscopic surgeons independently evaluated and scored 13 surgical video recordings using both systems. Material and Methods: The standardized AFS adhesion scoring method and the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method were utilized to assess abdominal adhesions. The more comprehensive adhesion scoring method scored 23 individual locations in the abdominal cavity for severity (0, none; 1, filmy, avascular; 2, vascular and/or dense; 3, cohesive) and extent of total area or length (0, none; 1, ≤25%; 2, 26% to 50%; 3, >50%). Because the best method of representing a composite adhesion score is unclear, the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method employed two independent methods of determining total score based on the severity and extent at each location, either adding severity plus extent or multiplying severity times extent before summing all 23 locations. Results: For each scoring method, a correlation coefficient was calculated for each of the 55 pairs of surgeons. Significant correlations were identified for all methods (AFS adhesion scoring method: 35 of 55, 64%; more comprehensive adhesion scoring method: severity plus extent, 49 of 55, 89%; and more comprehensive adhesion scoring method: severity times extent, 53 of 55, 96%). When the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method is limited to 13 areas in the lower pelvis corresponding to the locations represented in the AFS adhesion scoring method, the proportion of significant correlation coefficients become 54 of 55 and 50 of 55 for severity plus extent and severity times extent, respectively. Conclusion: Although the AFS adhesion scoring method generated significant agreement between pairs of surgeons, less than a third correlated at the 0.7 level. Use of the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method specifically demonstrating locations, severity, and extent of adhesions produced a marked increase in reproducibility between surgeon pairs in scoring pelvic adhesions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)984-988
Number of pages5
JournalFertility and sterility
Volume62
Issue number5
StatePublished - Jan 1 1994

Fingerprint

Research Design
Fertility
Video Recording
Abdominal Cavity
Pelvis
Blood Vessels

Keywords

  • Adhesions
  • scoring method
  • videorecording

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Diamond, M. P., Bachus, K., Bieber, E., Bradshaw, K., Gallup, D., Grunert, G., ... Smith, E. (1994). Improvement of interobserver reproducibility of adhesion scoring systems. Fertility and sterility, 62(5), 984-988.

Improvement of interobserver reproducibility of adhesion scoring systems. / Diamond, Michael Peter; Bachus, K.; Bieber, E.; Bradshaw, K.; Gallup, D.; Grunert, G.; Mok, A.; Morris, R.; Perez, R.; Radwanska, E.; Silverberg, K.; Steinkampf, M.; Halpern, E.; Fleming, L.; Smith, E.

In: Fertility and sterility, Vol. 62, No. 5, 01.01.1994, p. 984-988.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Diamond, MP, Bachus, K, Bieber, E, Bradshaw, K, Gallup, D, Grunert, G, Mok, A, Morris, R, Perez, R, Radwanska, E, Silverberg, K, Steinkampf, M, Halpern, E, Fleming, L & Smith, E 1994, 'Improvement of interobserver reproducibility of adhesion scoring systems', Fertility and sterility, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 984-988.
Diamond MP, Bachus K, Bieber E, Bradshaw K, Gallup D, Grunert G et al. Improvement of interobserver reproducibility of adhesion scoring systems. Fertility and sterility. 1994 Jan 1;62(5):984-988.
Diamond, Michael Peter ; Bachus, K. ; Bieber, E. ; Bradshaw, K. ; Gallup, D. ; Grunert, G. ; Mok, A. ; Morris, R. ; Perez, R. ; Radwanska, E. ; Silverberg, K. ; Steinkampf, M. ; Halpern, E. ; Fleming, L. ; Smith, E. / Improvement of interobserver reproducibility of adhesion scoring systems. In: Fertility and sterility. 1994 ; Vol. 62, No. 5. pp. 984-988.
@article{501ef6bd1e6049148e939beee2426f45,
title = "Improvement of interobserver reproducibility of adhesion scoring systems",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the interobserver reproducibility of two adhesion scoring methods, a more comprehensive adhesion scoring method and the American Fertility Society (AFS) adhesion scoring method. Design: Eleven endoscopic surgeons independently evaluated and scored 13 surgical video recordings using both systems. Material and Methods: The standardized AFS adhesion scoring method and the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method were utilized to assess abdominal adhesions. The more comprehensive adhesion scoring method scored 23 individual locations in the abdominal cavity for severity (0, none; 1, filmy, avascular; 2, vascular and/or dense; 3, cohesive) and extent of total area or length (0, none; 1, ≤25{\%}; 2, 26{\%} to 50{\%}; 3, >50{\%}). Because the best method of representing a composite adhesion score is unclear, the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method employed two independent methods of determining total score based on the severity and extent at each location, either adding severity plus extent or multiplying severity times extent before summing all 23 locations. Results: For each scoring method, a correlation coefficient was calculated for each of the 55 pairs of surgeons. Significant correlations were identified for all methods (AFS adhesion scoring method: 35 of 55, 64{\%}; more comprehensive adhesion scoring method: severity plus extent, 49 of 55, 89{\%}; and more comprehensive adhesion scoring method: severity times extent, 53 of 55, 96{\%}). When the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method is limited to 13 areas in the lower pelvis corresponding to the locations represented in the AFS adhesion scoring method, the proportion of significant correlation coefficients become 54 of 55 and 50 of 55 for severity plus extent and severity times extent, respectively. Conclusion: Although the AFS adhesion scoring method generated significant agreement between pairs of surgeons, less than a third correlated at the 0.7 level. Use of the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method specifically demonstrating locations, severity, and extent of adhesions produced a marked increase in reproducibility between surgeon pairs in scoring pelvic adhesions.",
keywords = "Adhesions, scoring method, videorecording",
author = "Diamond, {Michael Peter} and K. Bachus and E. Bieber and K. Bradshaw and D. Gallup and G. Grunert and A. Mok and R. Morris and R. Perez and E. Radwanska and K. Silverberg and M. Steinkampf and E. Halpern and L. Fleming and E. Smith",
year = "1994",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
pages = "984--988",
journal = "Fertility and Sterility",
issn = "0015-0282",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improvement of interobserver reproducibility of adhesion scoring systems

AU - Diamond, Michael Peter

AU - Bachus, K.

AU - Bieber, E.

AU - Bradshaw, K.

AU - Gallup, D.

AU - Grunert, G.

AU - Mok, A.

AU - Morris, R.

AU - Perez, R.

AU - Radwanska, E.

AU - Silverberg, K.

AU - Steinkampf, M.

AU - Halpern, E.

AU - Fleming, L.

AU - Smith, E.

PY - 1994/1/1

Y1 - 1994/1/1

N2 - Objective: To compare the interobserver reproducibility of two adhesion scoring methods, a more comprehensive adhesion scoring method and the American Fertility Society (AFS) adhesion scoring method. Design: Eleven endoscopic surgeons independently evaluated and scored 13 surgical video recordings using both systems. Material and Methods: The standardized AFS adhesion scoring method and the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method were utilized to assess abdominal adhesions. The more comprehensive adhesion scoring method scored 23 individual locations in the abdominal cavity for severity (0, none; 1, filmy, avascular; 2, vascular and/or dense; 3, cohesive) and extent of total area or length (0, none; 1, ≤25%; 2, 26% to 50%; 3, >50%). Because the best method of representing a composite adhesion score is unclear, the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method employed two independent methods of determining total score based on the severity and extent at each location, either adding severity plus extent or multiplying severity times extent before summing all 23 locations. Results: For each scoring method, a correlation coefficient was calculated for each of the 55 pairs of surgeons. Significant correlations were identified for all methods (AFS adhesion scoring method: 35 of 55, 64%; more comprehensive adhesion scoring method: severity plus extent, 49 of 55, 89%; and more comprehensive adhesion scoring method: severity times extent, 53 of 55, 96%). When the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method is limited to 13 areas in the lower pelvis corresponding to the locations represented in the AFS adhesion scoring method, the proportion of significant correlation coefficients become 54 of 55 and 50 of 55 for severity plus extent and severity times extent, respectively. Conclusion: Although the AFS adhesion scoring method generated significant agreement between pairs of surgeons, less than a third correlated at the 0.7 level. Use of the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method specifically demonstrating locations, severity, and extent of adhesions produced a marked increase in reproducibility between surgeon pairs in scoring pelvic adhesions.

AB - Objective: To compare the interobserver reproducibility of two adhesion scoring methods, a more comprehensive adhesion scoring method and the American Fertility Society (AFS) adhesion scoring method. Design: Eleven endoscopic surgeons independently evaluated and scored 13 surgical video recordings using both systems. Material and Methods: The standardized AFS adhesion scoring method and the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method were utilized to assess abdominal adhesions. The more comprehensive adhesion scoring method scored 23 individual locations in the abdominal cavity for severity (0, none; 1, filmy, avascular; 2, vascular and/or dense; 3, cohesive) and extent of total area or length (0, none; 1, ≤25%; 2, 26% to 50%; 3, >50%). Because the best method of representing a composite adhesion score is unclear, the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method employed two independent methods of determining total score based on the severity and extent at each location, either adding severity plus extent or multiplying severity times extent before summing all 23 locations. Results: For each scoring method, a correlation coefficient was calculated for each of the 55 pairs of surgeons. Significant correlations were identified for all methods (AFS adhesion scoring method: 35 of 55, 64%; more comprehensive adhesion scoring method: severity plus extent, 49 of 55, 89%; and more comprehensive adhesion scoring method: severity times extent, 53 of 55, 96%). When the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method is limited to 13 areas in the lower pelvis corresponding to the locations represented in the AFS adhesion scoring method, the proportion of significant correlation coefficients become 54 of 55 and 50 of 55 for severity plus extent and severity times extent, respectively. Conclusion: Although the AFS adhesion scoring method generated significant agreement between pairs of surgeons, less than a third correlated at the 0.7 level. Use of the more comprehensive adhesion scoring method specifically demonstrating locations, severity, and extent of adhesions produced a marked increase in reproducibility between surgeon pairs in scoring pelvic adhesions.

KW - Adhesions

KW - scoring method

KW - videorecording

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028081281&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028081281&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 7926146

AN - SCOPUS:0028081281

VL - 62

SP - 984

EP - 988

JO - Fertility and Sterility

JF - Fertility and Sterility

SN - 0015-0282

IS - 5

ER -