| Title |
Interrater reliability of a national acute myocardial infarction register
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epidemiology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/clep.s105933 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ragna Elise Støre Govatsmark, Sylvi Sneeggen, Hanne Karlsaune, Stig Arild Slørdahl, Kaare Harald Bønaa |
| Abstract |
Disease-specific registers may be used for measuring and improving healthcare and patient outcomes, and for disease surveillance and research, provided they contain valid and reliable data. The aim of this study was to assess the interrater reliability of all variables in a national myocardial infarction register. We randomly selected 280 patients who had been enrolled from 14 hospitals to the Norwegian Myocardial Infarction Register during the year 2013. Experienced audit nurses, who were blinded to the data about the 280 patients already in the register, completed the Norwegian Myocardial Infarction paper forms for 240 patients by review of medical records. We then extracted all registered data on the same patients from the Norwegian Myocardial Infarction Register. To compare the interrater reliability between the register and the audit nurses, we calculated intraclass correlations coefficient for continuous variables, Cohen's kappa and Gwet's first agreement coefficient (AC1) for nominal variables, and quadratic weighted Cohen's kappa and Gwet's second AC for ordinal variables. We found excellent (AC1 >0.80) or good (AC1 0.61-0.80) agreement for most variables, including date and time variables, medical history, investigations and treatments during hospitalization, medication at discharge, and ST-segment elevation or non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction. However, only moderate agreement (AC1 0.41-0.60) was found for family history of coronary heart disease, diagnostic electrocardiography, and complications during hospitalization, whereas fair agreement (AC1 0.21-0.40) was found for acute myocardial infarction location. A high percentage of missing data was found for symptom onset, family history, body mass index, infarction location, and new Q-wave. Most variables in Norwegian Myocardial Infarction Register had excellent or good reliability. However, some important variables had lower reliability than expected or had missing data. Precise definitions of data elements and proper training of data abstractors are necessary to ensure that clinical registries contain valid and reliable data. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#639
of 793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,483
of 381,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 381,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.