Table 1.
Inter- and intra-observer kappa values in the two hospitals, each with four observers
| Classification into 15 fracture types in the algorithm | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital 1, observers | KH | HP | EP | SG | Intra-observer |
| KH | – | – | – | – | |
| 0.57 | |||||
| HP | 0.68 | – | – | – | |
| 0.78 | |||||
| EP | 0.66 | 0.65 | – | – | |
| 0.61 | |||||
| SG | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.64 | – | |
| 0.48 | |||||
| Consensus | 0.74 | 0.87 | 0.66 | 0.62 | |
| 0.64 | |||||
| Hospital 2, observers | KB | HA | TA | PS | Intra-observer |
| KB | – | – | – | – | |
| 0.58 | |||||
| HA | 0.64 | – | – | – | |
| 0.64 | |||||
| TA | 0.64 | 0.66 | – | – | |
| 0.51 | |||||
| PS | 0.59 | 0.54 | 0.59 | – | |
| 0.59 | |||||
| Consensus | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.71 | 0.64 | |
| 0.58 | |||||
| Choosing between the five implant types in the algorithm | |||||
| Hospital 1, observers | KH | HP | EP | SG | Intra-observer |
| KH | – | – | – | – | |
| 0.89 | |||||
| HP | 0.92 | – | – | – | |
| 0.92 | |||||
| EP | 0.92 | 0.90 | – | – | |
| 0.86 | |||||
| SG | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.85 | – | |
| 0.77 | |||||
| Consensus | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.85 | |
| 0.89 | |||||
| Hospital 2, observers | KB | HA | TA | PS | Intra-observer |
| KB | – | – | – | – | |
| 0.89 | |||||
| HA | 0.89 | – | – | – | |
| 0.90 | |||||
| TA | 0.85 | 0.81 | – | – | |
| 0.77 | |||||
| PS | 0.82 | 0.85 | 0.78 | – | |
| 0.85 | |||||
| Consensus | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.82 | 0.85 | |
| 0.86 | |||||