Interrater variability in manual palpation of the medial femorotibial joint of Warmbloods and American Quarter Horses based on experience level
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary Background Manual palpation of the equine medial femorotibial joint (MFT) is commonly performed during lameness evaluation. Previous studies have shown poor inter‐observer agreement between experienced clinicians and between stifle effusion palpation and ultrasonography. No study has been performed that has evaluated palpation agreement of the MFT based on low to high experience levels nor comparing two different breeds. Objectives To compare inter‐ and intra‐observer agreement between palpation and ultrasound in assessing effusion and joint capsule thickening of the MFT in two breeds. Study design Observational cross‐sectional. Methods Sixteen Quarter Horse and 16 Warmblood MFT were manually palpated for effusion and joint capsule thickening by three faculty members, three house officers and three fourth‐year veterinary students. Ultrasound of the MFT was performed and images were reviewed by a boarded radiologist. Stifle effusion and joint capsule thickening were graded on manual palpation and ultrasound images using 0–5 and binary scales. Interrater reliability was performed with the intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement by means of a 2‐way model. Spearman rank correlation was used to examine associations between palpation scores for each observer and ultrasound scores. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results Interrater reliability for palpation of MFT effusion and joint capsule thickening was poor between all observers, regardless of experience level. No significant correlation was identified between palpation and ultrasound scores for any observer or between breeds. Main limitations Only two breeds were compared. Participants were chosen based on availability and may not accurately represent all experience levels. Conclusions Palpation of the MFT was highly variable, regardless of experience. Compared to ultrasound, manual palpation had no significant correlation, indicating low accuracy. These results were consistent across all experience levels and breeds, suggesting that palpation alone should not be relied upon to quantify effusion or joint capsule thickening in the MFT.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».