Interrater and intrarater agreement of the chicago classification of achalasia subtypes using high-resolution esophageal manometry

Jose C. Hernandez, Shiva K. Ratuapli, George E. Burdick, John K. Dibaise, Michael D. Crowell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Subclassification of achalasia based on high-resolution manometry (HRM) may be clinically relevant because response to therapy may vary by subtype. However, the consistency and reliability of subtyping achalasia patients based on HRM remains undefined. The objectives of this study were to assess interrater and intrarater agreement (reliability) of achalasia subtyping using the Chicago classification, and to evaluate the diagnostic consistency between clinicians interpreting HRM. Methods: After receiving training on the classification criteria, five raters classified 20 achalasia and 10 non-achalasia cases in separate sessions 1 week apart. To further assess agreement, two raters classified all 101 available achalasia HRMs. Agreement for the classification of subtypes of achalasia was calculated using Cohen's and Krippendorff's α-reliability estimate. Results: Estimates of agreement among raters was good during both sessions (α=0.75; 95% confidence interval=0.69, 0.81 and α=0.75; 95% confidence interval=0.68, 0.81). Both interrater (κ0.86-1.0) and intrarater (κ0.86-1.0) agreement were very good for type III achalasia. Agreement between types I and II was more variable. Reliability was improved when type I and type II were combined (α=0.84; 95% confidence interval=0.78, 0.89). When all available cases were classified by two experienced raters, agreement was very good (κ0.81; 95% confidence interval=0.71, 0.91). Conclusions: Interobserver and intraobserver agreement for differentiating achalasia from non-achalasia patients using HRM and the Chicago classification was very good to excellent. More variability was seen in agreement when classifying achalasia subtypes. The most variation was observed in classification between type I and type II achalasia, which have similar characteristics. Clearly, differentiating between panesophageal pressurization and compartmentalization should improve discrimination between these subtypes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)207-214
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume107
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2012

Fingerprint

Esophageal Achalasia
Manometry
Confidence Intervals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Interrater and intrarater agreement of the chicago classification of achalasia subtypes using high-resolution esophageal manometry. / Hernandez, Jose C.; Ratuapli, Shiva K.; Burdick, George E.; Dibaise, John K.; Crowell, Michael D.

In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 107, No. 2, 02.2012, p. 207-214.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hernandez, Jose C. ; Ratuapli, Shiva K. ; Burdick, George E. ; Dibaise, John K. ; Crowell, Michael D. / Interrater and intrarater agreement of the chicago classification of achalasia subtypes using high-resolution esophageal manometry. In: American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2012 ; Vol. 107, No. 2. pp. 207-214.
@article{98a26848487f41acad9b47a51790719a,
title = "Interrater and intrarater agreement of the chicago classification of achalasia subtypes using high-resolution esophageal manometry",
abstract = "Objectives: Subclassification of achalasia based on high-resolution manometry (HRM) may be clinically relevant because response to therapy may vary by subtype. However, the consistency and reliability of subtyping achalasia patients based on HRM remains undefined. The objectives of this study were to assess interrater and intrarater agreement (reliability) of achalasia subtyping using the Chicago classification, and to evaluate the diagnostic consistency between clinicians interpreting HRM. Methods: After receiving training on the classification criteria, five raters classified 20 achalasia and 10 non-achalasia cases in separate sessions 1 week apart. To further assess agreement, two raters classified all 101 available achalasia HRMs. Agreement for the classification of subtypes of achalasia was calculated using Cohen's and Krippendorff's α-reliability estimate. Results: Estimates of agreement among raters was good during both sessions (α=0.75; 95{\%} confidence interval=0.69, 0.81 and α=0.75; 95{\%} confidence interval=0.68, 0.81). Both interrater (κ0.86-1.0) and intrarater (κ0.86-1.0) agreement were very good for type III achalasia. Agreement between types I and II was more variable. Reliability was improved when type I and type II were combined (α=0.84; 95{\%} confidence interval=0.78, 0.89). When all available cases were classified by two experienced raters, agreement was very good (κ0.81; 95{\%} confidence interval=0.71, 0.91). Conclusions: Interobserver and intraobserver agreement for differentiating achalasia from non-achalasia patients using HRM and the Chicago classification was very good to excellent. More variability was seen in agreement when classifying achalasia subtypes. The most variation was observed in classification between type I and type II achalasia, which have similar characteristics. Clearly, differentiating between panesophageal pressurization and compartmentalization should improve discrimination between these subtypes.",
author = "Hernandez, {Jose C.} and Ratuapli, {Shiva K.} and Burdick, {George E.} and Dibaise, {John K.} and Crowell, {Michael D.}",
year = "2012",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1038/ajg.2011.353",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "107",
pages = "207--214",
journal = "American Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "0002-9270",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interrater and intrarater agreement of the chicago classification of achalasia subtypes using high-resolution esophageal manometry

AU - Hernandez, Jose C.

AU - Ratuapli, Shiva K.

AU - Burdick, George E.

AU - Dibaise, John K.

AU - Crowell, Michael D.

PY - 2012/2

Y1 - 2012/2

N2 - Objectives: Subclassification of achalasia based on high-resolution manometry (HRM) may be clinically relevant because response to therapy may vary by subtype. However, the consistency and reliability of subtyping achalasia patients based on HRM remains undefined. The objectives of this study were to assess interrater and intrarater agreement (reliability) of achalasia subtyping using the Chicago classification, and to evaluate the diagnostic consistency between clinicians interpreting HRM. Methods: After receiving training on the classification criteria, five raters classified 20 achalasia and 10 non-achalasia cases in separate sessions 1 week apart. To further assess agreement, two raters classified all 101 available achalasia HRMs. Agreement for the classification of subtypes of achalasia was calculated using Cohen's and Krippendorff's α-reliability estimate. Results: Estimates of agreement among raters was good during both sessions (α=0.75; 95% confidence interval=0.69, 0.81 and α=0.75; 95% confidence interval=0.68, 0.81). Both interrater (κ0.86-1.0) and intrarater (κ0.86-1.0) agreement were very good for type III achalasia. Agreement between types I and II was more variable. Reliability was improved when type I and type II were combined (α=0.84; 95% confidence interval=0.78, 0.89). When all available cases were classified by two experienced raters, agreement was very good (κ0.81; 95% confidence interval=0.71, 0.91). Conclusions: Interobserver and intraobserver agreement for differentiating achalasia from non-achalasia patients using HRM and the Chicago classification was very good to excellent. More variability was seen in agreement when classifying achalasia subtypes. The most variation was observed in classification between type I and type II achalasia, which have similar characteristics. Clearly, differentiating between panesophageal pressurization and compartmentalization should improve discrimination between these subtypes.

AB - Objectives: Subclassification of achalasia based on high-resolution manometry (HRM) may be clinically relevant because response to therapy may vary by subtype. However, the consistency and reliability of subtyping achalasia patients based on HRM remains undefined. The objectives of this study were to assess interrater and intrarater agreement (reliability) of achalasia subtyping using the Chicago classification, and to evaluate the diagnostic consistency between clinicians interpreting HRM. Methods: After receiving training on the classification criteria, five raters classified 20 achalasia and 10 non-achalasia cases in separate sessions 1 week apart. To further assess agreement, two raters classified all 101 available achalasia HRMs. Agreement for the classification of subtypes of achalasia was calculated using Cohen's and Krippendorff's α-reliability estimate. Results: Estimates of agreement among raters was good during both sessions (α=0.75; 95% confidence interval=0.69, 0.81 and α=0.75; 95% confidence interval=0.68, 0.81). Both interrater (κ0.86-1.0) and intrarater (κ0.86-1.0) agreement were very good for type III achalasia. Agreement between types I and II was more variable. Reliability was improved when type I and type II were combined (α=0.84; 95% confidence interval=0.78, 0.89). When all available cases were classified by two experienced raters, agreement was very good (κ0.81; 95% confidence interval=0.71, 0.91). Conclusions: Interobserver and intraobserver agreement for differentiating achalasia from non-achalasia patients using HRM and the Chicago classification was very good to excellent. More variability was seen in agreement when classifying achalasia subtypes. The most variation was observed in classification between type I and type II achalasia, which have similar characteristics. Clearly, differentiating between panesophageal pressurization and compartmentalization should improve discrimination between these subtypes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84856697322&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84856697322&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/ajg.2011.353

DO - 10.1038/ajg.2011.353

M3 - Article

C2 - 22008895

AN - SCOPUS:84856697322

VL - 107

SP - 207

EP - 214

JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 0002-9270

IS - 2

ER -