Home › Research › How common it is
Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility of cerebral atrophy assessment on MRI scans with hemispheric infarcts
Pasquier F, Leys D, Weerts JG, Mounier-Vehier F, Barkhof F, Scheltens P.. European neurology, 1996-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Cerebral atrophy (CA) in stroke patients is associated with poststroke dementia and may reflect underlying neurodegenerative pathology. Therefore, regional CA may be valuable to study in patients who develop poststroke dementia. The aim of this study was to test the reproducibility of a qualitative rating scale of CA on MRI. MRI scans were performed in 50 consecutive patients (age range 19-81) admitted for an acute hemispheric ischemic stroke. CA was assessed on 2 occasions 24 h apart, on axial T2-weighted sequences by 4 independent observers. We evaluated CA in 13 regions on a 0-3 scale. The sum of the subscores was called the CA score (range: 0-39). The level of agreement was expressed by kappa statistics as well as by analysis of variance for interexaminer reproducibility studies. The mean CA scores ranged from 2.8 to 11.0, indicating the low prevalence of CA in this sample. Complete agreement was reached in 41.7% during the first assessment and in 44.1% in the second assessment. The interobserver agreement was moderate in the first session (mean overall kappa: 0.48) and substantial in the second (mean overall kappa: 0.67). The intraobserver agreement was good for all raters (mean kappa: 0.65). Standardized to the range of the scale, standard deviations of the differences between CA scores of the 4 raters in the 2 sessions were 11.1 and 11.2%; within raters it was 4.4%. We conclude that the assessment of CA using this rating scale is possible in stroke patients. It provides regional atrophy measurements and is reproducible when performed by 1 rater.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Pasquier, F., Leys, D., Weerts, J. G., Mounier-Vehier, F., Barkhof, F., & Scheltens, P. (1996). Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility of cerebral atrophy assessment on MRI scans with hemispheric infarcts. European neurology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000117270
Vancouver
Pasquier F, Leys D, Weerts JG, Mounier-Vehier F, Barkhof F, Scheltens P. Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility of cerebral atrophy assessment on MRI scans with hemispheric infarcts. European neurology. 1996. doi:10.1159/000117270. PMID: 8864706.
BibTeX
@article{pasquier1996-8864706,
author = {Pasquier, F. and Leys, D. and Weerts, J. G. and Mounier-Vehier, F. and Barkhof, F. and Scheltens, P.},
title = {{Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility of cerebral atrophy assessment on MRI scans with hemispheric infarcts}},
journal = {European neurology},
year = {1996},
doi = {10.1159/000117270},
pmid = {8864706},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000117270}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Cerebral atrophy (CA) in stroke patients is associated with poststroke dementia and may reflect underlying neurodegenerative pathology.
- The interobserver agreement was moderate in the first session (mean overall kappa: 0.48) and substantial in the second (mean overall kappa: 0.67).
- We conclude that the assessment of CA using this rating scale is possible in stroke patients.
Why it matters
This study tested a qualitative rating scale for cerebral atrophy on MRI in stroke patients, finding moderate to substantial interobserver agreement and good intraobserver agreement. It concludes that assessment of cerebral atrophy using this rating scale is possible in stroke patients, though the sample had a low prevalence of cerebral atrophy.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Alzheimer's in numbers →
Study details
- Effect size41.7%; 44.1%; 11.2%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 64 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (European neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1996 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (OpenAlex dates this DOI to 2008, the record says 1996; OpenAlex values not used) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | 3 / 6 | Cited by 23 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 8864706) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 64 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 64 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Later studies that cite this one
23 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
Related studies in How common it is
Also tagged “vessel”
900 studies in the library carry the topic tag “vessel”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 900 tagged studies.