INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT ON THE ASSESSABILITY OF STANDARD VENTRODORSAL HIP-EXTENDED RADIOGRAPHS AND ITS EFFECT ON AGREEMENT IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF CANINE HIP DYSPLASIA AND ON ROUTINE FCI SCORING
Version of Record online: 21 APR 2009
© 2009 American College of Veterinary Radiology
Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound
Volume 50, Issue 3, pages 259–263, May/June 2009
How to Cite
VERHOEVEN, G. E. C., COOPMAN, F., DUCHATEAU, L., BOSMANS, T., VAN RYSSEN, B. and VAN BREE, H. (2009), INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT ON THE ASSESSABILITY OF STANDARD VENTRODORSAL HIP-EXTENDED RADIOGRAPHS AND ITS EFFECT ON AGREEMENT IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF CANINE HIP DYSPLASIA AND ON ROUTINE FCI SCORING. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound, 50: 259–263. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2009.01530.x
- Issue online: 21 APR 2009
- Version of Record online: 21 APR 2009
- Received May 9, 2008; accepted for publication November 19, 2008.
- hip dysplasia
Insufficient agreement on scoring hip quality might be caused by differences in the assessability of a radiograph (exposure, contrast, positioning, and diagnostic quality). We studied the agreement in assessability of standard ventrodorsal hip-extended radiographs by experienced (nine) and inexperienced (21) observers, using the standard subjective method of quality control, currently applied in screening programs. The effect of assessability on the agreement of scoring hip quality [dysplastic vs. nondysplastic and the final Federation Cinologique International (FCI) score] was also investigated. There was a significant difference (P<0.0001) in agreement on assessability between the experienced and inexperienced observers. In 68% of evaluations, experienced observers stated that the radiograph was assessable. Inexperienced observers evaluated the radiographs as being assessable in only 46.5% of evaluations. Increased interobserver agreement on assessability of a radiograph did not increase the overall interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of hip dysplasia, nor did it result in consistent scoring of the hip status from that radiograph, despite a significant (P<0.05) increase in agreement of FCI scoring with an increasing agreement on assessability at a one to five ratio in the experienced group. The inconsistent evaluation of radiographic quality, as well as the inconsistent evaluation of the hip quality, caused differences in diagnosing hip dysplasia and FCI scoring in the same dog ranging from excellent hips to moderate hip dysplasia. Therefore, the credibility of the FCI screening method for canine hip dysplasia, using the standard hip-extended radiographic view, as currently applied in most European countries, is questionable.