首页> 外文会议>SPIE Medical Imaging Conference >Reader Disagreement Index: a better measure of overall review quality monitoring in an oncology trial compared to adjudication rate
【24h】

Reader Disagreement Index: a better measure of overall review quality monitoring in an oncology trial compared to adjudication rate

机译:读者分歧指数:与审判率相比,在肿瘤审判中更好地评估肿瘤审判中的总体审查质量监测

获取原文

摘要

Purpose: Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) is highly recommended by regulatory authorities for oncologyregistration trials. “Adjudication rate” provided by “Two Reviewers and Adjudicator Paradigm” of BICR has been part ofreviewer performance metrics and trial efficacy. However, adjudication rate does not consider the adjudicator agreementor disagreement rate of a reviewer. We analyzed that Reader Disagreement Index (RDI) is a better measure thanadjudication rate to monitor reviewer performance in BICR.Methods: BICR adjudication data from 3 different clinical trials including 10 board-certified radiologist reviewers usingResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria was analyzed. RDI for each reviewer was calculatedusing the below mentioned formula. Reviewer adjudication rate and adjudicator agreement rate was calculated for eachreviewer along with RDI. RDI was used to identify the discordant reviewer with highest disagreement rate.RDI (%) = Number of cases where adjudicator disagreed with given reader/Total number of cases read ×100 Results: RDI identified the discordant reviewer in all 3 studies. Discordant reviewers identified using RDI were not thereviewers with highest adjudication or lowest agreement rates. Adjudication rate identified the discordant reviewer in 1of the 3 studies. Reviewer with lowest adjudicator agreement could not have been identified as discordant reviewer usingonly adjudication rate in monitoring reviewer performance. RDI is more robust in identifying a discordant reviewer whoneither has highest adjudication nor lowest agreement rate.Conclusions: RDI is more reliable measure of reviewer performance as compared to adjudication rate and could beeffectively used to monitor reviewer performance as it combines both reviewer adjudication percentage and adjudicationagreement percentage.
机译:目的:由肿瘤监管机构强烈推荐盲目的独立中央评论(BICR)注册试验。 “两个审稿人和裁判者范式”提供的“裁决率”是BICR的一部分评论家性能指标和试验效能。但是,裁决率不考虑裁决人协议或审阅者的分歧率。我们分析了读者分歧指数(RDI)是一个比监测BICR审核表现的审判率。方法:BICR判决数据来自3种不同的临床试验,包括10个董事会认证放射科医师审查员使用分析了实体肿瘤中的响应评估标准(重新入住)1.1标准。计算每个评论者的RDI使用以下公式。审核裁判率和裁决协议率为每次计算审稿人和RDI一起。 RDI用于识别具有最高分歧率的不和谐审稿人。RDI(%)=判决者对给定读者的判决/读数总数读取×100的案件数量结果:RDI在所有3项研究中确定了不和谐的评论者。使用RDI确定的不和谐审稿人不是具有最高裁决或最低协议率的审稿人。审判率确定了1个不和谐的评论者3研究。具有最低审裁员协议的审核人员无法使用仅在监测审核绩效方面的裁决率。 RDI在识别不和谐的评论者时更加强大既不裁决也没有最低的协议率。结论:与裁决率相比,RDI更可靠地衡量审查员绩效衡量标准有效地用于监测审阅者性能,因为它结合了审核者裁决百分比和裁决协议百分比。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号