ライフサイエンスコーパス: interrater reliability

1 hypodensities at baseline (kappa = 0.87 for interrater reliability).

2 ently scored by the other raters to evaluate interrater reliability.

3 ent two independent assessments to establish interrater reliability.

4 of care, but a major drawback has been poor interrater reliability.

5 were performed in blinded fashion to assess interrater reliability.

6 category, and management for test-retest and interrater reliability.

7 independently by a second researcher to test interrater reliability.

8 arater reliability and from 0.44 to 1.00 for interrater reliability.

9 ing concerns regarding testing confounds and interrater reliability.

10 Fourteen studies evaluated interrater reliability.

11 ment Scale all exhibited very high levels of interrater reliability.

12 Average neurologic soft sign scores (interrater reliability = 0.74) of women with PTSD owing

13 ested the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) for interrater reliability and compared it with the Ramsay s

14 ease (ILD), relatively little is known about interrater reliability and construct validity of HRCT-re

15 This study demonstrates that HRCT has good interrater reliability and correlates with indices of th

16 The RASS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability and criterion, construct, and fac

17 The RCT-PQRS had good interrater reliability and internal consistency.

18 The CPM (a) demonstrated satisfactory interrater reliability and internal consistency; (b) exh

19 sted for photographic equivalency as well as interrater reliability and intrarater reliability by 5 r

20 This study was conducted to determine the interrater reliability and predictive validity of a set

21 iew for Prodromal Syndromes showed promising interrater reliability and predictive validity.

22 There was improvement in the interrater reliability and the level of agreement from E

23 We tested interrater reliability and validity in determining the N

24 isease activity and damage demonstrated high interrater reliability and were shown to be comprehensiv

25 Internal consistency, interrater reliability, and concurrent (criterion) valid

26 Secondary outcomes included feasibility, interrater reliability, and efficiency to complete bedsi

27 ted methods of rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift in clinical tria

28 ted methods of rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift were systematica

29 ber of raters, rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift.

30 ndently scored by 3 dermatopathologists with interrater reliability assessed.

31 ssments of performance were recorded with an interrater reliability between reviewers of 0.99.

32 was found to have good internal consistency, interrater reliability, concurrent validity, high sensit

33 Analyses of interrater reliabilities, convergent validities accordin

34 For a subsample, interrater reliability data were available.

35 ree (14%) of the multicenter trials reported interrater reliability, despite a median number of five

36 Interrater reliabilities for intern and team technical s

37 tion coefficient scores were used to measure interrater reliability for both scenarios.

38 Good interrater reliability for BPII can be achieved when the

39 Further, the interrater reliability for diagnosing schizoaffective di

40 By contrast, the interrater reliability for erythema was higher during in

41 Interrater reliability for multiphase CT angiography is

42 Interrater reliability for OSAD was excellent (ICC = 0.9

43 The interrater reliability for radiographs was dependent on

44 The interrater reliability for specific locations was also e

45 Interrater reliability for the Arabic CAM-ICU, overall a

46 There was excellent interrater reliability for the identification of localiz

47 Rheumatologists and patients had low interrater reliability for the presence of hypercholeste

48 Live scoring showed an excellent interrater reliability for the VES (intraclass correlati

49 udy nurses and intensivist demonstrated high interrater reliability for their CAM-ICU ratings with ka

50 ation over time was observed because of high interrater reliability from the outset (ie, a ceiling ef

51 ead to the diagnosis of a syndrome with high interrater reliability, good face validity, and high pre

52 physicians using structured implicit review (interrater reliability >0.90).

53 There was an improvement in interrater reliability in the second phase of the study.

54 atric rheumatologists demonstrated excellent interrater reliability in their global assessments of ju

55 dapted Cognitive Exam demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficie

56 l records review studies, information on the interrater reliability (IRR) of the data is seldom repor

57 9.0 minutes per patient) and more objective (interrater reliability kappa 0.79 vs 0.45) than the conv

58 ccuracy of 94% (95% CI 88% to 97%), and high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.94; 95% CI 0.83-1.0).

59 5% confidence interval, 95-100%), and a high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.96; 95% confidence int

60 93%, specificities of 98% and 100%, and high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.96; 95% confidence int

61 Interrater reliability (Kendall's coefficient of concord

62 Interrater reliability measures across subgroup comparis

63 Severity Scale was associated with excellent interrater reliability, moderate internal consistency, a

64 lass correlation coefficient as a measure of Interrater reliability, NICS scored as high, or higher t

65 Internal consistencies and interrater reliabilities of factors were stable across a

66 this study was to determine test-retest and interrater reliabilities of RUCAM in retrospectively-ide

67 predefined errors for each procedure minute (interrater reliability of error assessment r > 0.80).

68 Interrater reliability of handgrip dynamometry was very

69 Interrater reliability of handheld dynamometry was compa

70 The interrater reliability of many of the key concepts in ps

71 Criterion, construct, face validity, and interrater reliability of NICS over time and comparison

72 Interrater reliability of nodule detection with MR imagi

73 Interrater reliability of proSPI-s was assessed in 12 pa

74 portray depressed patients to establish the interrater reliability of raters using the Hamilton Depr

75 A scoring cut point of 9 demonstrated good interrater reliability of the Cornell Assessment of Pedi

76 e To evaluate the diagnostic performance and interrater reliability of the Liver Imaging Reporting an

77 Interrater reliability of the Medical Research Council s

78 Interrater reliability of the Medical Research Council-s

79 The interrater reliability of the modified Advocacy-Inquiry

80 The interrater reliability of the NDJ was excellent, with an

81 The interrater reliability of the overall scale showed an IC

82 The kappa coefficient for interrater reliability ranged from 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31 to

83 Interrater reliability (reported as intraclass correlati

84 perienced PET researchers participated in an interrater reliability study using both (11)C-DTBZ K(1)

85 The poor interrater reliability suggests that if digital ulcerati

86 Outcome measures had higher interrater reliability than process measures.

87 Interrater reliability, validity, and dimensionality of

88 Interrater reliability was (k = 0.79).

89 .54 (upper 95% confidence limit = 0.77); the interrater reliability was 0.45 (upper 95% confidence li

90 Interrater reliability was 0.536 (95% confidence interva

91 Interrater reliability was 0.91 (intraclass correlation

92 Excellent interrater reliability was achieved in all assessments (

93 Interrater reliability was assessed by using a set of te

94 The interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass cor

95 Interrater reliability was assessed using kappa statisti

96 Interrater reliability was assessed, using the five scal

97 Interrater reliability was determined by using a two-way

98 Interrater reliability was estimated using a multirater

99 MR images were assessed; interrater reliability was evaluated.

100 VTI interrater reliability was excellent (intraclass correla

101 Interrater reliability was excellent for CSAMI Activity

102 We found that the interrater reliability was excellent with the FOUR score

103 ants in whom visual and SUVR data disagreed, interrater reliability was moderate (kappa = 0.44), but

104 Interrater reliability was poorer (weighted kappa = 0.46

105 Excellent interrater reliability was present (correlation coeffici

106 was scored on a six-point ordinal scale, and interrater reliability was tested.

107 Interrater reliability was then explored.

108 n atypical characteristics yielded very high interrater reliability (weighted kappa = 0.80; bootstrap

109 both the RASS and RS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (weighted kappa, 0.91 and 0.94, r

110 Interrater reliabilities were .82 or greater for all MRI

111 The interrater reliabilities were highest for the PDAI, foll

112 ty including sensitivity and specificity and interrater reliability were determined using daily delir

113 Adequate levels of interrater reliability were found for 24 of 26 items.

114 ata also indicate the presence of acceptable interrater reliability when using the Ottawa GRS.

115 ypes IV, VI, and VI demonstrated a sustained interrater reliability, with an ICC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.8

116 There was high interrater reliability, with an intraclass correlation c