戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。

今後説明を表示しない

[OK]

コーパス検索結果 (1語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1            When compared with the intra- and interrater 95% limits of agreement (0.7% and 0.8%), acce
2 tifact (median score, 1; P = .17), with good interrater agreement (image quality, noise, and artifact
3 an completion time per study was 20 minutes; interrater agreement (kappa statistic) reported by 9 rev
4 ication of RCM descriptors with fair to good interrater agreement (kappa statistic, >/=0.3) and indep
5 sts and referrals per participant, with fair interrater agreement about the suitability of WGS findin
6 purpose in this study was to investigate the interrater agreement among psychiatrists in psychiatric
7                                              Interrater agreement and intrarater agreement were asses
8                                          The interrater agreement between allergists was substantial
9 riables, the kappa statistics used to assess interrater agreement between readers were fair (0.45, 0.
10 common cases, there was strong (> or = 0.70) interrater agreement for 30 of 34 elements.
11                      There was also a better interrater agreement for ADC map analysis than for DWI a
12 ement among the dentists is described by the interrater agreement kappa for several standard clinical
13 and pharmacogenomic findings, and burden and interrater agreement of proposed clinical follow-up.
14 nalyzed content, with kappa coefficients for interrater agreement ranging from 0.82 to 0.93.
15                                              Interrater agreement revealed a kappa value of 0.95 with
16 s quantified using Cohen kappa, a measure of interrater agreement that takes into account the possibi
17                                              Interrater agreement values were 0.65 for fibrosis, 0.86
18 ; p < .001) and the weighted kappa score for interrater agreement was 0.92 (p < .001).
19                                              Interrater agreement was 65% for rachitic changes (kappa
20                                              Interrater agreement was also excellent (kappa > 0.6), a
21 le detection rate between MR techniques, and interrater agreement was assessed by using Bland-Altman
22                                              Interrater agreement was assessed by using kappa statist
23 ators independently rated study quality, and interrater agreement was calculated.
24 nonenhanced (TNE) images was determined, and interrater agreement was evaluated by using the Cohen k
25                                              Interrater agreement was good (kappa = 0.78).
26         The agreement in margin distance and interrater agreement was good (kappa = 0.81 and 0.912, r
27                                 As a result, interrater agreement was low for most adverse effects, r
28                                              Interrater agreement was similar for procedure-specific
29                                 The level of interrater agreement was very strong (kappa = 0.77-1).
30                   SAS is both reliable (high interrater agreement) and valid (high correlation with t
31                          Standard indices of interrater agreement, expressed as a kappa statistic, we
32                         The CAINS structure, interrater agreement, test-retest reliability, and conve
33 rnal consistency, test-retest stability, and interrater agreement.
34                                              Interrater agreements were analyzed by using the Krippen
35                                              Interrater analysis showed significant agreement in term
36                                          The interrater and intrarater intraclass correlation coeffic
37                                          The interrater and intrarater reliabilities of the multiple-
38                                          The interrater and intrarater reliabilities were good (0.95
39                  Main Outcomes and Measures: Interrater and intrarater reliability and convergent val
40                    Primary outcomes included interrater and intrarater reliability and convergent val
41 car rating assessments, and to determine the interrater and intrarater reliability of the SCAR scale.
42 ic regression for categorical variables, and interrater and intrarater reliability was assessed by us
43 ntraclass correlation coefficient ranges for interrater and intrarater reliability were 0.72 to 0.98
44                        Internal consistency, interrater and intrarater reliability, and criterion val
45 as a reliability study to assess clinicians' interrater and intrarater reliability, as well as the re
46  the remaining 60 of which were analyzed for interrater and intrarater reliability.
47                                              Interrater and test-retest consistency were determined.
48                                              Interrater and test-retest correlations were good or ver
49                                              Interrater and test-retest reliability for the total sco
50                   On the standardized cases, interrater consensus was achieved on 82% of scores with
51 ANTS and NOTSS had the highest intertool and interrater consistency, respectively.
52                       There was an excellent interrater correlation in aortoseptal angle and aortic a
53                                              Interrater correlation of map scoring ranged from weak t
54                                              Interrater correlation was high for SAS (r2 = .83; p < .
55 on the contralateral side in three patients (interrater kappa value, 0.80).
56  positive agreement, negative agreement, and interrater kappa values ranging from 17.9% to 42.9%, 91.
57  positive agreement, negative agreement, and interrater kappa values ranging from 87.5% to 93.1%, 95.
58 er (proSPI-s, saSPI-s, SPI-p, and SPI-i) and interrater (proSPI-s) reliability was demonstrated (all
59                                              Interrater reliabilities for intern and team technical s
60                   Internal consistencies and interrater reliabilities of factors were stable across a
61  this study was to determine test-retest and interrater reliabilities of RUCAM in retrospectively-ide
62                                              Interrater reliabilities were .82 or greater for all MRI
63                                          The interrater reliabilities were highest for the PDAI, foll
64                                  Analyses of interrater reliabilities, convergent validities accordin
65 physicians using structured implicit review (interrater reliability >0.90).
66 dapted Cognitive Exam demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficie
67 l records review studies, information on the interrater reliability (IRR) of the data is seldom repor
68 ccuracy of 94% (95% CI 88% to 97%), and high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.94; 95% CI 0.83-1.0).
69 93%, specificities of 98% and 100%, and high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.96; 95% confidence int
70 5% confidence interval, 95-100%), and a high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.96; 95% confidence int
71                                              Interrater reliability (Kendall's coefficient of concord
72                                              Interrater reliability (reported as intraclass correlati
73 n atypical characteristics yielded very high interrater reliability (weighted kappa = 0.80; bootstrap
74  both the RASS and RS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (weighted kappa, 0.91 and 0.94, r
75         Average neurologic soft sign scores (interrater reliability = 0.74) of women with PTSD owing
76 ested the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) for interrater reliability and compared it with the Ramsay s
77 ease (ILD), relatively little is known about interrater reliability and construct validity of HRCT-re
78   This study demonstrates that HRCT has good interrater reliability and correlates with indices of th
79              The RASS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability and criterion, construct, and fac
80                        The RCT-PQRS had good interrater reliability and internal consistency.
81        The CPM (a) demonstrated satisfactory interrater reliability and internal consistency; (b) exh
82 sted for photographic equivalency as well as interrater reliability and intrarater reliability by 5 r
83    This study was conducted to determine the interrater reliability and predictive validity of a set
84 iew for Prodromal Syndromes showed promising interrater reliability and predictive validity.
85                 There was improvement in the interrater reliability and the level of agreement from E
86                                    We tested interrater reliability and validity in determining the N
87 isease activity and damage demonstrated high interrater reliability and were shown to be comprehensiv
88 ndently scored by 3 dermatopathologists with interrater reliability assessed.
89 ssments of performance were recorded with an interrater reliability between reviewers of 0.99.
90                             For a subsample, interrater reliability data were available.
91 tion coefficient scores were used to measure interrater reliability for both scenarios.
92                                         Good interrater reliability for BPII can be achieved when the
93                                 Further, the interrater reliability for diagnosing schizoaffective di
94                             By contrast, the interrater reliability for erythema was higher during in
95                                              Interrater reliability for multiphase CT angiography is
96                                              Interrater reliability for OSAD was excellent (ICC = 0.9
97                                          The interrater reliability for radiographs was dependent on
98                                          The interrater reliability for specific locations was also e
99                                              Interrater reliability for the Arabic CAM-ICU, overall a
100                          There was excellent interrater reliability for the identification of localiz
101         Rheumatologists and patients had low interrater reliability for the presence of hypercholeste
102             Live scoring showed an excellent interrater reliability for the VES (intraclass correlati
103 udy nurses and intensivist demonstrated high interrater reliability for their CAM-ICU ratings with ka
104 ation over time was observed because of high interrater reliability from the outset (ie, a ceiling ef
105                  There was an improvement in interrater reliability in the second phase of the study.
106 atric rheumatologists demonstrated excellent interrater reliability in their global assessments of ju
107 9.0 minutes per patient) and more objective (interrater reliability kappa 0.79 vs 0.45) than the conv
108                                              Interrater reliability measures across subgroup comparis
109 predefined errors for each procedure minute (interrater reliability of error assessment r > 0.80).
110                                              Interrater reliability of handgrip dynamometry was very
111                                              Interrater reliability of handheld dynamometry was compa
112                                          The interrater reliability of many of the key concepts in ps
113     Criterion, construct, face validity, and interrater reliability of NICS over time and comparison
114                                              Interrater reliability of nodule detection with MR imagi
115                                              Interrater reliability of proSPI-s was assessed in 12 pa
116  portray depressed patients to establish the interrater reliability of raters using the Hamilton Depr
117   A scoring cut point of 9 demonstrated good interrater reliability of the Cornell Assessment of Pedi
118 e To evaluate the diagnostic performance and interrater reliability of the Liver Imaging Reporting an
119                                              Interrater reliability of the Medical Research Council s
120                                              Interrater reliability of the Medical Research Council-s
121                                          The interrater reliability of the modified Advocacy-Inquiry
122                                          The interrater reliability of the NDJ was excellent, with an
123                                          The interrater reliability of the overall scale showed an IC
124                    The kappa coefficient for interrater reliability ranged from 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31 to
125 perienced PET researchers participated in an interrater reliability study using both (11)C-DTBZ K(1)
126                                     The poor interrater reliability suggests that if digital ulcerati
127                  Outcome measures had higher interrater reliability than process measures.
128                                              Interrater reliability was (k = 0.79).
129 .54 (upper 95% confidence limit = 0.77); the interrater reliability was 0.45 (upper 95% confidence li
130                                              Interrater reliability was 0.536 (95% confidence interva
131                                              Interrater reliability was 0.91 (intraclass correlation
132                                    Excellent interrater reliability was achieved in all assessments (
133                                              Interrater reliability was assessed by using a set of te
134                                          The interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass cor
135                                              Interrater reliability was assessed using kappa statisti
136                                              Interrater reliability was assessed, using the five scal
137                                              Interrater reliability was determined by using a two-way
138                                              Interrater reliability was estimated using a multirater
139                     MR images were assessed; interrater reliability was evaluated.
140                                          VTI interrater reliability was excellent (intraclass correla
141                                              Interrater reliability was excellent for CSAMI Activity
142                            We found that the interrater reliability was excellent with the FOUR score
143 ants in whom visual and SUVR data disagreed, interrater reliability was moderate (kappa = 0.44), but
144                                              Interrater reliability was poorer (weighted kappa = 0.46
145                                    Excellent interrater reliability was present (correlation coeffici
146 was scored on a six-point ordinal scale, and interrater reliability was tested.
147                                              Interrater reliability was then explored.
148 ty including sensitivity and specificity and interrater reliability were determined using daily delir
149                           Adequate levels of interrater reliability were found for 24 of 26 items.
150 ata also indicate the presence of acceptable interrater reliability when using the Ottawa GRS.
151  hypodensities at baseline (kappa = 0.87 for interrater reliability).
152                        Internal consistency, interrater reliability, and concurrent (criterion) valid
153     Secondary outcomes included feasibility, interrater reliability, and efficiency to complete bedsi
154 ted methods of rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift in clinical tria
155 ted methods of rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift were systematica
156 ber of raters, rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift.
157 was found to have good internal consistency, interrater reliability, concurrent validity, high sensit
158 ree (14%) of the multicenter trials reported interrater reliability, despite a median number of five
159 ead to the diagnosis of a syndrome with high interrater reliability, good face validity, and high pre
160 Severity Scale was associated with excellent interrater reliability, moderate internal consistency, a
161 lass correlation coefficient as a measure of Interrater reliability, NICS scored as high, or higher t
162                                              Interrater reliability, validity, and dimensionality of
163 ypes IV, VI, and VI demonstrated a sustained interrater reliability, with an ICC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.8
164                               There was high interrater reliability, with an intraclass correlation c
165 ing concerns regarding testing confounds and interrater reliability.
166                   Fourteen studies evaluated interrater reliability.
167 ment Scale all exhibited very high levels of interrater reliability.
168 ently scored by the other raters to evaluate interrater reliability.
169 ent two independent assessments to establish interrater reliability.
170  of care, but a major drawback has been poor interrater reliability.
171  were performed in blinded fashion to assess interrater reliability.
172 category, and management for test-retest and interrater reliability.
173 independently by a second researcher to test interrater reliability.
174 arater reliability and from 0.44 to 1.00 for interrater reliability.
175  face-to-face interviews was contrasted with interrater values, which were obtained by having a secon
176 raphs and CT scans (both by McNemar's test), interrater variability (by logistic regression), and the
177                                       Median interrater variability was 3.3% and 5.9% for THGr(Ce) an
178                                              Interrater variability was estimated with the kappa stat
179               The scores were tabulated, and interrater variability was measured for the common cases
180       Kappa statistics were used to evaluate interrater variability.

WebLSDに未収録の専門用語(用法)は "新規対訳" から投稿できます。
 
Page Top