Confidence Interval For Intraclass Correlation Coefficient Research Articles

Analysis of the thenar muscles with ultrasound shear wave elastography: Reliability and preliminary findings.

Ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE) of the thenar muscles has the potential to provide a simple and noninvasive assessment of the severity of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), but its reliability is unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the intra- and inter-rater reliability of SWE measurements of the elastic modulus of individual thenar muscles, to assess their suitability for clinical application. Fourteen healthy volunteers, seven male and seven female, participated in this study. The elastic modulus of the thenar muscles was measured with SWE, with two independent examiners to assess inter-rater reliability. The first examiner also performed a second measurement after an interval of least 1 day to assess intra-rater reliability. Reliability was evaluated using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For the abductor pollicis brevis (APB) and opponens pollicis (OPP), the CI of ICC in intra-rater reliability was 0.47-0.85 and 0.56-0.88, respectively. The CI of ICC in inter-rater reliability was 0.27-0.78 for the APB and 0.22-0.76 for the OPP. The ICCs of intra- and/or inter-rater reliability of other thenar muscles were less than 0.5. In this study, SWE evaluations of thenar muscles were quite variable in terms of their reliability. A larger study will be needed to determine the source of this variability, improve reliability, and assess the value of SWE in the evaluation of the severity of CTS.

A comparison of IOLMaster 500 and IOLMaster 700 in the measurement of ocular biometric parameters in cataract patients

To compare the agreement of ocular biometric parameters measured by IOLMaster 500 and IOLMaster 700. This is a prospective study. IOLMaster 500 and IOLMaster 700 were used to measure the axial eye length (AL), corneal flat keratometry (Kf), corneal steep keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), corneal astigmatism(CA), J0, J45, anterior chamber depth (ACD) and corneal horizontal diameter (white-to-white distance, WTW) of 518 eyes (392 patients) with cataracts. Patients were enrolled unilaterally. Subgroup analyses were done according to the AL and Km. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland–Altman analysis were used to evaluate the agreement. A total of 275 eyes were analyzed. The 95% confidence interval of ICC of the mean AL, Ks, Kf, Km, J0, and ACD values measured by the two instruments are indicative of excellent reliability (P < 0.001). The measurement results of WTW show good reliability (P < 0.001). The ICC of CA is of good reliability in CA < 0.5 D group (P = 0.000) and moderate reliability in the other two groups (P = 0.000). The WTW is the widest range among 95% consistency of the limit range measured by the two instruments. The results of IOLMaster 500 and IOLMaster 700 in measuring AL, keratometry, and ACD in cataract patients are of high agreement.

Diffusion-weighted quantitative MRI of pleural abnormalities: Intra- and interobserver variability in the apparent diffusion coefficient measurements.

To assess intra- and interobserver variability in the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements of pleural abnormalities. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 34 patients to characterize pleural abnormalities, with a 1.5T unit at b values of 0/150/500/800 sec/mm2 . In two sessions held 3 months apart, on perfusion-free ADC maps, two independent readers measured the ADC of pleural abnormalities (two readings for each reader in each case) using different methods of region-of-interest (ROI) positioning. In three methods, freehand ROIs were drawn within tumor boundaries to encompass the entire lesion on one or more axial slices (whole tumor volume [WTV], three slices observer-defined [TSOD], single-slice [SS]), while in two methods one or more ROIs were placed on the more restricted areas (multiple small round ROI [MSR], one small round ROI [OSR]). Measurement variability between readings by each reader (intraobserver repeatability) and between readers in first reading (interobserver repeatability) were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CoV). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare ADC values between the different methods. The measurement time of each case for all methods in first reading was recorded and compared between methods and readers. All methods demonstrated good (MSR, OSR) and excellent (WTV, TSOD, SS) intra- and interreader agreement, with best and worst repeatability in WTV (lower ICC, 0.977; higher CoV, 3.5%) and OSR (lower ICC, 0.625; higher CoV, 22.8%), respectively. The lower 95% confidence interval of ICC resulted in fair to moderate agreement for OSR (up to 0.379) and in excellent agreement for WTV, TSV, and SS (up to 0.918). ADC values of OSR and MSR were significantly lower compared to other methods (P < 0.001). The OSR and SS required less measurement time (10 and 21/22 sec, respectively) compared to the others (P < 0.0001), while the WTV required the longest measurement time (132/134 sec) (P < 0.0001). ADC measurements of pleural abnormalities are repeatable. The SS method has excellent repeatability, similar to WTV, but requires significantly less measurement time. Thus, its use should be preferred in clinical practice. 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;46:769-782.

Confidence intervals for intraclass correlation coefficients in a nonlinear dose-response meta-analysis.

This work is motivated by a meta-analysis case study on antipsychotic medications. The Michaelis-Menten curve is employed to model the nonlinear relationship between the dose and D2 receptor occupancy across multiple studies. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is used to quantify the heterogeneity across studies. To interpret the size of heterogeneity, an accurate estimate of ICC and its confidence interval is required. The goal is to apply a recently proposed generic beta-approach for construction the confidence intervals on ICCs for linear mixed effects models to nonlinear mixed effects models using four estimation methods. These estimation methods are the maximum likelihood, second-order generalized estimating equations and two two-step procedures. The beta-approach is compared with a large sample normal approximation (delta method) and bootstrapping. The confidence intervals based on the delta method and the nonparametric percentile bootstrap with various resampling strategies failed in our settings. The beta-approach demonstrates good coverages with both two-step estimation methods and consequently, it is recommended for the computation of confidence interval for ICCs in nonlinear mixed effects models for small studies.

신뢰도 연구에서 급내상관계수와 관련한 표본수 결정 방법 비교

신뢰도 연구는 한 명의 평가자가 연구 대상을 반복 측정하거나 여러 명의 평가자가 한 대상을 평가할 때 평가자 내, 평가자 간 일치도를 알아보는 연구로 임상 의학 분야에서 빈번하게 쓰이고 있다. 이 같은 신뢰도 연구에서 적절한 표본수, 평가자수 및 반복수를 결정하는 것은 비용과 시간 측면에서 보다 더 효율적인 연구를 할 수 있게 해주는 중요한 요인이다. 본 연구의 목적은 신뢰도 연구에서 측정치가 정량적일 때 쓰이는 신뢰도 계수인 급내상관계수(ICC)와 관련한 기존의 표본수 산출 방법들을 비교분석하여 적절한 표본수나 반복수를 결정할 때 그 지침을 제공하는데 있다. 기존 논문에서 제시한 Walter 등 (1998), Giraudeau와 Mary (2001), Saito 등 (2006) 그리고 Bonett (2002)의 방법들을 비교하였다. 임의효과 일원배치 모형일 때 같은 조건에서 가장 적은 양의 정보를 필요로 하는 방법을 찾는 목적으로 요인을 변화시켜 가면서 표본수, 반복수, 신뢰구간 폭을 비교한다. 비교해 본 결과, 가장 작은 수의 표본을 필요로 하는 방법은 Giraudeau의 방법, 가장 작은 수의 반복을 필요로 하는 방법은 Saito의 방법으로 나타났다. 가장 많은 수의 표본과 반복을 필요로 한 방법은 Bonett의 방법이었다. 정도는 Giraudeau의 방법이 가장 높았고 Walter, Saito, Bonett 순으로 정도가 떨어졌다. In medical practice and research, the problem of assessing reliability between two or more quantitative measures is quite common. Intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) is commonly used to scale of reliability. Some methods were developed to calculate the required number of subjects, raters or replicates in one-way or two-way random ANOVA models. This paper, studies and compares the performance of four methods such as Walter et al. (1998), Giraudeau and Mary (2001), Saito et al. (2006) and Bonett (2002). In order to compare the efficiency of methods we compare the number of subjects, replicates and the width of confidence interval of ICC needed for some specific ICC values. In the case of subject size, Giraudeau's method is the best. In case of the number of replicates, Saito's method was superior to others. The width of confidence interval of ICC was narrower for Giraudeau's method than any others.