CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Sinusitis and nasal conditionsNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesReliability and Agreement in Measurement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interrater agreement of nasal endoscopy in patients with a prior history of endoscopic sinus surgery

Open access
McCoul, Edward D., Smith, Timothy L., Mace, Jess C., Anand, Vijay K., Senior, Brent A., Hwang, Peter H., Stankiewicz, James A., Tabaee, Abtin·2012·International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology
DOI 10.1002/alr.21058PMC PMC3448826
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Nasal endoscopy is an important part of the clinical evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. However, the objectivity and interrater agreement of the procedure related findings have not been well studied, especially in patients who have previously had sinus surgery. Methods: Patients with a history of endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis were prospectively enrolled from a tertiary rhinology practice. Fourteen endoscopic nasal examinations were recorded using digital video capture software. Each patient also underwent computed tomography (CT) and completed the Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT‐22). Blinded review of inflammatory and anatomic findings for each video was independently performed by 5 academic rhinologists at separate institutions. Comparisons were performed using the unweighted Fleiss' kappa statistic (K f) and the prevalence‐ and bias‐adjusted kappa (PABAK). Results: There were no significant correlations between age, Lund‐Mackay score, or SNOT‐22 score. Interrater agreement was variable across the characteristics studied. Mean PABAK was excellent for the assessment of polyps (K f = 0.886); moderate for the assessments of middle turbinate (MT) integrity (K f = 0.543), MT position (K f = 0.443), maxillary sinus patency (K f = 0.593), and ethmoid sinus patency (K f = 0.429); fair for discharge (K f = 0.314), synechiae (K f = 0.257), and middle meatus patency (K f = 0.229); and poor for MT mucosal changes (K f = 0.148) and uncinate process (K f = 0.126). Conclusion: This study was notable for variability in the interrater agreement among the inflammatory and anatomic attributes that were examined. Further standardization of nasal endoscopy with regard to interpretation may improve the reliability of this procedure in clinical practice. ©2012 ARSAAOA, LLC.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/alr.21058

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most recently published articles that have assessed inter-rater reliability have used Cohen's Kappa exclusively [19-26].

    “Most recently published articles that have assessed inter-rater reliability have used Cohen’s Kappa exclusively [19-26]”

    From A comparison of cohen's Kappa and gwet's AC1 when calculating inter-rater reliability coefficients: A study conducted with personality disorder samples (2013) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Methods (Statistical Analysis; page unavailable) state that this study assessed inter-rater agreement with Fleiss’ kappa, supplemented by Spearman rank correlations and prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa. Thus, this cited article is a counterexample to the claim that the cited inter-rater reliability articles used Cohen’s kappa exclusively. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Few researchers have used AC1 as a statistical tool, or are even aware of it, especially in the medical field.

    “few researchers have used AC1 as a statistical tool, or are even aware of it, especially in the medical field.”

    From A comparison of cohen's Kappa and gwet's AC1 when calculating inter-rater reliability coefficients: A study conducted with personality disorder samples (2013) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Methods (Statistical Analysis; page unavailable) describe Fleiss’ kappa and prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa, not AC1. Searches for AC1 and Gwet’s agreement coefficient found no passage about how often researchers use AC1 or whether medical researchers are aware of it. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Lund VJ, 1993, Staging in rhinosinusitis, Rhinology, 107, 183

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
McCoul, E. D., Smith, T. L., Mace, J. C., Anand, V. K., Senior, B. A., Hwang, P. H., Stankiewicz, J. A., & Tabaee, A.
Affiliations
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Loyola University Chicago (US)
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Tabaee, Abtin
ORCID
Venue
International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-06-13
Volume
2
Issue
6
Pages
453-459
ISSN
  • 2042-6976 (ISSN-L)
  • 2042-6984
DOI
10.1002/alr.21058
PMC
PMC3448826
OpenAlex
W1990701183
Cited by
28
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC005805)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
nasal endoscopy, interobserver agreement, chronic rhinosinusitis, endoscopic sinus surgery, polyps, middle turbinate, synechiae, middle meatus, mucosal changes, Lund-Mackay score
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Clinical Competence, Endoscopy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nasal Polyps, Otolaryngology, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Reoperation, Rhinitis, Risk Factors, Sinusitis, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Video Recording, Observer Variation, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review