Table 5.
Inter-rater agreement reliability in experiment 2
Approach | Agreement level | N | Agreement, % (95% CI) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exact | 15-day window | 30-day window | |||
Radiology-anchored | Event | 55 | 98 (94–100) | – | – |
Date | 49 | 61 (47–75) | 67 (54–80) | 69 (56–82) | |
Overall | 55 | 64 (51–77) | 69 (57–81) | 71 (59–83) | |
Clinician-anchored | Event | 55 | 96 (91–100) | – | – |
Date | 48 | 60 (46–74) | 67 (54–80) | 71 (58–84) | |
Overall | 55 | 62 (49–75) | 67 (55–79) | 71 (59–83) | |
Combined | Event | 55 | 98 (94–100) | – | – |
Date | 49 | 61 (47–75) | 69 (56–82) | 71 (58–84) | |
Overall | 55 | 64 (51–77) | 71 (59–83) | 73 (61–85) |
Patient charts were abstracted in duplicate by different abstractors and agreement (95% CIs) is reported. Event agreement is based on the presence or absence of at least one cancer progression event. Date agreement is based on when the progression occurred, and only calculated in cases where both abstractors recorded a cancer progression. Overall agreement is based on a combined approach where both the absence or presence of a progression event and the date of the event, if one was found, contribute toward agreement