Table 2.
Video analysis of 68 time-looped slide decks consisting of 46 original and 22 repeat slide decks
| Injection volume (µL) | |||||
| 25 | 50 | 100 | 200 | Overall | |
| No. (%) of ratings | |||||
| 0 (least severe) | 106 (49%) | 19 (9%) | 3 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 128 (15%) |
| 1 | 87 (40%) | 63 (29%) | 8 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 158 (19%) |
| 2 | 20 (9%) | 96 (44%) | 26 (13%) | 1 (1%) | 143 (17%) |
| 3 | 2(1%) | 37 (17%) | 115 (58%) | 31 (16%) | 185 (22%) |
| 4 (most severe) | 1 (0%) | 1 (0%) | 46 (23%) | 166 (84%) | 214 (26%) |
| Mean score (SE)a | 0.63 (0.137) | 1.71 (0.138) | 2.97 (0.145) | 3.83 (0.140) | |
| Mean change per 2-fold increase in injection volume (95% CI) | 1.09 (0.961, 1.209) | ||||
| Intraclass correlationb (95% CI) | 0.84 (0.786, 0.901) | ||||
| Intrarater agreementc (95% CI) | 0.8503 (0.8219, 0.8788) | ||||
a
Means, standard errors (SE), and regression parameters are estimated under linear mixed-effects model.
b
ICC measures interrater agreement; values near 1 indicate good agreement between raters.
cIntrarater agreement analysis conducted by weighted κ analysis demonstrated high fidelity in rater scoring (that is, raters agreed with themselves very well).