Agreement studies in obstetrics and gynaecology: inappropriateness, controversies and consequences
Open Access
- 12 January 2005
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- Vol. 112 (5) , 667-669
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00505.x
Abstract
A literature review was performed to assess how agreement has been measured in obstetrics and gynaecology. Inappropriate or controversial measures were often used. The possible consequences of these inadequacies on validity studies and randomised controlled trials are shown in case examples. The association of two measures, proportions of agreement and kappa for categorical variables, and limits of agreement and intraclass correlation coefficient for continuous variables, is encouraged in agreement studies, until new and better ways of assessing agreement are found.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammographyThe Lancet, 2001
- Evaluation of a clinical test. I: Assessment of reliabilityBritish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2001
- Evaluation of a clinical test. II: Assessment of validityBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2001
- Fluorescence spectroscopy for diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervixObstetrics & Gynecology, 1999
- Efficacy and safety of intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring: an updateObstetrics & Gynecology, 1995
- The fetal heart rate trace is normal, isn't it?: Observer agreement of categorical assessmentsThe Lancet, 1991
- High agreement but low Kappa: I. the problems of two paradoxesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1990
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986