Chest radiography of acute paediatric lower respiratory infections: experience versus interobserver variation
Version of Record online: 16 APR 2013
©2013 Foundation Acta Pædiatrica. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Volume 102, Issue 7, pages e310–e314, July 2013
How to Cite
Levinsky, Y., Mimouni, F. B., Fisher, D. and Ehrlichman, M. (2013), Chest radiography of acute paediatric lower respiratory infections: experience versus interobserver variation. Acta Paediatrica, 102: e310–e314. doi: 10.1111/apa.12249
- Issue online: 30 MAY 2013
- Version of Record online: 16 APR 2013
- Accepted manuscript online: 9 APR 2013 04:02AM EST
- Manuscript Accepted: 21 MAR 2013
- Manuscript Revised: 20 MAR 2013
- Manuscript Received: 25 OCT 2012
- Emergency medicine;
- Interobserver variability;
To determine radiological and clinical chest radiographs (CRs) interpretation agreement in children with acute respiratory disease (ARD) versus clinical experience in multiple observers.
Chest radiographs obtained in 70 consecutive children at the emergency department in 2010–2011 for ARD were reviewed. They were interpreted by 1–10 paediatric residents, three board-certified paediatricians (BCPs), three paediatric pulmonologists and one paediatric radiologist. Chest radiographs were analysed for presence of 10 radiological features and five diagnoses. A short clinical and laboratory context was given. Each child was given a clinical decision. Statistical analysis was by Fleiss’ kappa for multiple observers.
Kappas by selected major diagnostic features and by observer experience were expressed relative to diagnosis by paediatric radiologist. Best agreements were for pleural effusion and pneumonia and worst for normal X-ray, hyperinflation and atelectasis. Years of experience were influential. Antibiotics for pneumonia diagnosed by radiologist would not have been prescribed in 23% of cases by residents, 25% by BCPs and 15% by pulmonologists.
In ARD in children, there is little interobserver agreement, especially among residents, which may impact on major clinical decision. There is a need to systematically train physicians in CRs reading.